Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Navneet Jha – Petitioner
versus
Magma Shrachi Finance Limited – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1780 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 20/01/2014 in Appeal No.441/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 1.3.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 21 and 3 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – This-Purchase Agreement – Release of Vehicle – Scope – Petitioner purchased a truck which was financed by respondent for an amount of Rs. 11,25,000/- – Petitioner repaid Rs. 14,13,120/- till November, 2011 – On 14.12.2011, the opposite party took possession of vehicle and asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs for release of vehicle – Complainant did not comply with the award of arbitrator – District Forum dismissed the complainant – Appeal against dismissed by State Commission – Hence this petition – Once the matter had been decided in an arbitration, the complaint in the Consumer Forum was not maintainable – Once the arbitration award has been passed, complainant cannot file complaint in a Consumer Forum – Since the arbitration award had not been challenged by petition and still exists, the same is binding on the petitioner – Finance Company was well within its right to seize the vehicle as per the agreement – Nothing brought on record to disagree with the concurrent findings of both For a below – Interference with declined.
Held: Admitted facts of the case are that the Petitioner purchased a Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX, Registration No.C.G.04-J.A-3730, which was financed by the Respondent for an amount of Rs.11,25,000/-, to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments commencing from 30th July, 2007 to 20th February, 2012. The Petitioner repaid an amount of Rs.14,13,120/- till November, 2011. On 04.12.2011, the Opposite Party took possession of the vehicle. On 14.12.2011, the Complainant filed a written report with Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattishgarh and on 15.12.2011 sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party. In reply to the notice, the Opposite Party asked the Complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for release of the vehicle. According to the Complainant, on 29.12.2011, he deposited the said amount with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party, however, did not return the vehicle.
Both the Fora below observed that once the matter had been decided in an Arbitration, the Complaint in the Consumer Forum was not maintainable. This Commission in Instalment Supply Ltd. vs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport I (2007) CPJ 34 (NC) observed that “the issue involved in this case is whether a complaint can be decided by the Consumer Fora after an arbitration award is already passed. The simple answer to this question is No.” This Commission in T. Srinivas & Anr. Vs. M/s Srija Construction, R.P. 3419/2013 decided on 19.11.2015 observed that “the words ‘in addition’ appearing in Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act enables the complainant to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum and also not file any other Forum. We feel, till the award passed in this case is in existence, or unless it is set aside by the competent authority under the relevant Act, this consumer complaint is not maintainable.” Once the arbitration award has been passed, the Petitioner/Complainant cannot not file Complaint in a Consumer Forum. In case the Petitioner had any objection against the award passed by the Arbitrator, he should have challenged the award before the Competent Court as per law. Had the arbitration award been set aside by the Competent Court, the matter would have been different and in that case, the Consumer Complaint could be maintainable. As the arbitration award had not been challenged by the Petitioner and still exists, the same is binding on the Petitioner.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 held that ‘under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the financer is real owner of the vehicle, therefore, there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle.’ This Commission in Pramod Kumar Rai vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. III (2012) CPJ 553 (NC) held that the Finance Company was well within its right to seize the vehicle as per the agreement. Petitioner/Complainant alleged that the Respondent/Opposite Party repossessed the vehicle on 04.12.2011 by using muscle force. Petitioner had not produced any evidence to prove this allegation. The Complainant lodged a Police report on 14.12.2011, ten days after the alleged incident. In such cases, normally Police report is lodged immediately, but in the present case the Complainant waited for ten days to do so.
Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the Petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(2) CPR 14 (SC): (2011) 11 SCC 269.
Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286.
I see no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings of both the Fora below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 7 to 12)
Result: Petition Dismissed.
ORDER
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member.—The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that he purchased Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX, Registration No.C.G.04-J.A-3730. He took a loan of Rs.11,25,000/- from the Respondent/Opposite Party, which was to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments commencing from 30th July, 2007 to 20th February, 2012. According to the Petitioner, he repaid an amount of Rs.14,13,120/- till November, 2011. An amount of Rs.52,730/- was still due to be paid. On 04.12.2011, the Opposite Party forcibly took possession of the vehicle with the help of muscleman. The value of the vehicle at that time was Rs.11,00,000/-. On 14.12.2011, the Complainant filed a written report with the Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh and on 15.12.2011 sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party. In reply to the notice, Opposite Party asked the Complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for release of the vehicle. On 29.12.2011, the Complainant deposited the said amount with the Opposite Party and also filed an objection that the vehicle should not be auctioned. The Opposite Party, even after receiving the amount had not returned the vehicle. Hence, the Petitioner approached the District Forum with following prayers: -
“A. That the OP may be directed to return the truck No.CG/04/JA/3730 alongwith all the ten new tyres as on condition dated 04.12.2011.
B. The OP may be directed to pay the loss of Rs.2500/- per day from 04.12.2011 upto the return of the vehicle.
C. Rs.500,000/- for mental harassment.
D. to award to the cost of the suit.
E. To award the interest @ 12% on the compensation amount.
F. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit.”
2. The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing written statement. It was stated that the as per Hire Purchase Agreement, the Opposite Party had become owner of the vehicle and the purchaser was only a bailee. The matter was referred to Arbitration, after notice to the Complainant. The Arbitrator passed an award dated 16.07.2011, but the Complainant did not comply with the Award. The Complaint before the District Forum, therefore, was not maintainable.
3. The District Forum after hearing the Parties and perusing the material on record, vide order dated 27.07.2012, dismissed the Complaint with the following observation: -
“On the basis of the above evidence and considerable issues we come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case therefore the complaint is dismissed. The complainant will pay Rs.2000/- cost of the suit and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated time then 9% interest will be payable but no interest will be payable on interest.”
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties, affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.
5. Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submitted that the State Commission erred in observing that once award is passed by the Arbitrator, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award. It was also submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the Respondent/Opposite Party.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite Party submitted that as the Petitioner failed to make payment of the balance amount, the Opposite Party took possession of the vehicle and before taking possession, intimation was given to the Police. It was also contended that as the dispute had already been decided by the Arbitrator, the proceedings before the Consumer Forum were not maintainable and further both the Fora bel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
