ORDER.

By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties not to seize the vehicle KL 73 169 from the custody of complainant, to receive only the lawful amount from the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss sustained to the complainant.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.8,90,000/- from the opposite parties on July 2014. The complainant has to repay it in 45 monthly installments. Due to financial stringency, the complainant could not repay two installments to the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties tried to seize the vehicle by demanding huge amount  towards default interest. The last date of repayment is March 2017 as per chart. On 28.05.2016. the opposite parties came to the house of complainant and tried to seize the vehicle forcefully. The act of opposite parties are deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint notices were issued to the Opposite parties and the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version the opposite parties admitted that the Complainant had entered in to a loan cum hypothecation agreement with 2^nd Opposite Party for the purchase of a bus bearing registration No.KL 73-169. As per agreement the Complainant had to repay the loan in 45 EMI of Rs.25,214/-. The Complainant was a chronic defaulter of many monthly instalments and many of the cheques issued towards the EMI's were dishonoured. Hence the Opposite Party filed arbitration case wide No.A-4363/15 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madrass and the Hon'ble Court directed Advocate Commissioner to repossess the vehicle. The same petition is still pending at the Hon'ble high Court. Suppressing all these facts, the Complainant approached this Forum. This Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4. The Opposite Parties file IA 377/2016 challanging the maintainability of complaint on the ground that the Arbitration award is passed on 28.04.2016 and the present complaint is filed on 01.05.2016 after the arbitration award. Hence the Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Notice of IA 377/16 is served to the complainant and the Complainant filed counter in the petition. In the counter, the Complainant contended that the opposite party had accepted money from the Complainant even after the passing of Arbitration Award and the Complainant is now liable to pay only 10 instalments towards the loan. The 10 instalments will amount to  Rs.2,52,300/- only and the Opposite party now demands Rs.6,81,000/- from the Complainant. Hence this complaint is maintainable before the forum.

5. Heard both sides. The Opposite Parties produced the Arbitration Award also along with the maintainability petition. The Award is seen passed on 28.04.2016. The present complaint is seen filed on 01.05.2016. In a ruling passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1936/15, the Hon'ble Justice J.M. Malik and Member S.M. Kanthikar ruled that when the Arbitrator has disposed the Arbitration case and Award passed, the Complainant cannot file a complaint before the Forum under Consumer Protection Act since it will become 'resjudicate'. The Forum is of the opinion that if there are two judgments by two courts in same subject matter, there will be conflicts of judgments. It is seen that the Complainant duly received notice in Arbitration case but the complainant not appeared there and contested the case. Now Arbitration case is already awarded. But the remedy of the Complainant is not exhausted. The Complainant can file appeal against the Arbitration Award in competent court. In view of the above decision by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In the result, IA 377/2016 is allowed since the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence the complaint is also dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of October 2016.