Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. Sharma, President, D.K. Poddar, Narendra Gupta, Ruchi Goel, Members
H.D.F.C. Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Chandra Shekhar - Respondent
Appeal No. FA/2018/567
Decided On : 03-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Mandal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, Advocate.
The complainant should have pursued remedies under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before approaching the Consumer Forum.
Headnote:
Loan - Consumer Dispute - Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34, Section 37 - The judgment discussed the loan agreement, non-payment of installments, seizure of tractor, and the arbitration award. The court highlighted the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and emphasized that the complainant should have filed an application under Section 34 or appeal under Section 37 against the arbitral award instead of approaching the Consumer Forum. The court found the complaint not maintainable and set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant obtained a loan for purchasing a tractor, failed to make regular payments, and had the tractor seized by the bank. The bank claimed non-payment of installments and refuted the seizure. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove depositing the disputed amount and highlighted the arbitration award passed in absence of the complainant. It emphasized that the complaint was not maintainable and set aside the impugned order.
Issues: Non-payment of loan installments, seizure of tractor, jurisdiction of Consumer Forum in light of arbitration award
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant should have filed an application under Section 34 or appeal under Section 37 against the arbitral award instead of approaching the Consumer Forum.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the bank was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.
ORDER :
R.S. Sharma, President
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.4.2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 91/2017. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P. as under:
| (a) | The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant and will provide R.C. Book of the vehicle to the complainant within one month. |
| (b) | The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) towards cost of litigation, to the complainant within one month. |
| (c) | The O.P. will comply the order within one month, otherwise interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable on the decretal amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.8.2017 till realization. |
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are, that in the month of March 2014, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs. 5,00,000 from the O.P. under agreement No. 8115511 for purchasing tractor. At the time of providing loan, the O.P. asked the complainant that for security of the land, to obtain cheques for his account and provide the bunch of cheques to the O.P. The O.P. assured the complainant that the same will not be misused. On believing the version of the O.P., the complainant provided a bunch of cheques out of which in 5-6 blank cheques, the O.P. Bank obtained signatures of the complainant and the O.P. assured that the same would not be misused, but for the security of the loan, it is taken by the Bank Management. Out of loan of Rs. 5,00,000, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 to the O.P., out of which for payment of amount of Rs. 63,000, the O.P. has not provided the receipt to the complainant. The complainant several times demanded the receipt for the same, but the O.P. did not provide the receipt. In the month of September 2015, the complainant had gone out of station for his personal work, in the meantime, the authorized person of the O.P. Mangal Pandey, came to his house and in absence of the family members of the complainant, forcibly seized and taken away the tractor. When the complainant reached to his house and came to know regarding the same, he went to the O.P. and requested for returning of the tractor, but the O.P. did not return the tractor to the complainant. Till date the O.P. did not return the tractor to the complainant and also did not provide the R.C. Book of the tractor. The complainant several time went to the O.P. and orally requested to the O.P. to return the tractor, provide the documents of the tractor, return the original cheques and also provide the receipt for payment of Rs. 63,000, but the O.P. did not provide the same, then the complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. Even then the O.P. did not give any response. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting relief Clause of the complaint.
3. Learned District Forum vide order dated 6.12.2017 has observed that in the instant case the O.P. is continuously appearing before the District Forum from 23.9.2017 and several opportunities were provided to the O.P. for filing written statement, but the O.P. could not file the written statement, therefore, the right of the O.P. for filing the written statement, is closed. Vide order dated 11.1.2018, the District Forum, had taken the written statement of the O.P. on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500. The O.P. filed its written statement in the form of affidavit of Indrapal Singh, Legal Officer, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Raipur and averred that the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 5,03,381 from the O.P. for purchase of tractor and executed an agreement. The
