Order No. 11                         Dated: 09.12.2024

Today is fixed for passing order on MA/418/2023 heard on 23.08.2024 in presence of both the sides.

It has been stated by the OPs in the MA under consideration that the complaint is not maintainable due to want of jurisdiction of this Commission, that OP Tata Motor Finance Ltd. is a non banking financial company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and the complainant has approached the OP co. for purpose of obtaining a loan against asset and after discussion a loan agreement was execution between the finance company as lender and the complainant for a loan on 20.09.2017 to purchase a vehicle one LPT 3718 TC bearing Registration No. NL01AA7826, that the complainant paid a few installments towards repayment of his loan but thereafter started making default, that the loan agreement dated 20.09.2017 between the parties contained an arbitration clause and in case of any dispute, same has to be referred to a Ld. Arbitrator for better adjudication of the same and accordingly the matter has been referred to the Ld. Arbitrator for adjudication the dispute in between the parties, that the complainant even after receiving the notice of Ld. Arbitrator failed to appear before Ld. Arbitrator an award was passed on 19.12.2019 by Ld. Arbitrator with respect to the hypothecated vehicle as mentioned afore and that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer U/S 2(7) of the CP Act, 2019 and the complaint is barred by principal of res judicata and the complainant has completely suppressed all the award of the Ld. Arbitrator. Prayer of the OPs is for dismissal of the complaint as the same is non-maintainable in the eye of law against the OP Co.

WO against the MA/418/2023 filed by the complainant on 22.11.2023 wherein it has been stated by the complainant that the OP has not locus standi to file such application and the same is motivated and harassing the complainant. It has also been stated by the complainant that the complainant already repaid almost 19 EMI (each Emi Rs.73,500/-) out of 57 in respect of loan and the complainant has failed to pay some EMI due to reason (i) local Farraka bridge was damaged for long time in last year and (ii) sudden worldwide lock down since March, 2020  for Covid-19. It has also argued at the time of hearing that the Hon’ble SCDRC has warned financial institution and bank against forcible taking away of vehicle under higher purchase agreement. Prayer of the complainant is to reject the said MA with cost.

At the time of advancing the argument it has been referred by the OPs the judgment RP No. 3835 of 2013 passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Gulzar Ali and also SLP (Civil) No. 33307 of 2015 in the matter of Gulzar Ali Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. in support of his statement.

One Civil Appeal of 2021, arising out of SLP (C) No. 18930 of 2019, has been referred for the OPs in the matter of M/s. Tata Motors Finance & Anr. Vs. Ram Deo Pandit & Ors. In the solemn order dated 06.09.2021 passed in the Appeal aforesaid that the notices were issued to the Respondent-1 by the Arbitrator and despite of notice the Respondent-1 having not participated in the proceeding and as such ex parte interim order U/S 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was passed by the Arbitrator allowing repossession of the vehicle. The order was passed on 19.12.2016, the Respondent-1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,75,737.58 along with interest @ 18% p.a. till date of realization and SLP (Civil) No. 18339 of 2019 in the matter of M/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd Vs. Raju Dutta & Ors. and the said appeal deserve to be allowed.

The Respondent-1 if he was agreed by the award passed by the arbitrator or any observation made therein could have been challenged the arbitral award by initiating proceeding in accordance with law. The arbitral award could not be challenged in proceedings initiated before the consumer forum. If the arbitral award was not challenged in a manner known to law such award has to be accepted by consumer forum and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC and Hon’ble State Commission and the consumer case 239/2018 shall stands dismissed.  

In the instant consumer complaint, an order was passed by Ld. Arbitrator on 19.12.2019 and this award had to be accepted by the Consumer Commission.

In view of the above observation, the prayer of the OPs for dismissal of the Consumer Complaint on maintainability ground is allowed and as such MA/418/2023 is disposed of.

The Consumer Complaint being No. CC/168/2023 is dismissed being non maintainable in the eye of law.

MA/418/2023 is thus disposed of accordingly.