A consumer complaint is not maintainable when a dispute has already been adjudicated through a binding arbitration award, particularly if the complainant has suppressed material facts regarding such award and failed to challenge it under the appropriate provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER :

The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Appeal to challenge the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been dismissed.

It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had purchased one used Volkswagen PASSAT Car bearing registration No.DL2CAM0888 Model 2012. He had taken a loan of Rs.3,53,548/- from the OPs vide loan Agreement No.13969421 dated 17.02.2017. An instalment of Rs.12,700/- was required to be paid per month. The schedule of EMI commenced w.e.f. 05.03.2017 to 05.12.2019. The Complainant had purchased the above said car from a car dealer of Karol Bagh New Delhi for a sum of Rs.8,53,548/-. He had paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs to the previous owner of the car from his own pocket whereas the remaining sum of Rs.3,53,548/- was paid by the OPs to the first owner of the car on behalf of the Complainant. Thus a total full and final payment of Rs.8,53,548/- was paid to the previous owner of the car. The OPs took the original RC of the above said car with them at the time of sanctioning loan of Rs.3,53,548/- to the Complainant. They had promised to return the same to the Complainant after getting transfer of the vehicle in his name. The Complainant after getting the entry of hypothecation in their name. The Complainant had paid four installments amounting to Rs.12,700/- each to the OPs which was paid from his bank account bearing No.039901575062 ICICI Bank Gurgaon now called as Gurugram. The instalments were credited in the account of the OPs. The Complainant had requested the OPs to return the RC as per their promise. However, the OPs had lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. However, despite paying four installments towards the car, the OPs did not hand over the documents of the ownership/RC of the said car. He was unable to ply the said car. Due the said act of OPs, he had suffered from mental torture, inconvenience and financial loss. The complainant had also informed the OPs that he was losing business as he was unable to drive the car without the RC as per the Motor Vehicle Act. The OPs instead of giving the RC of the car to the Complainant, took the possession of the car from him on 22.11.2017. The said act and conduct of the OPs tantamounts to ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ on their part. Hence, the Complaint was filed by the Complainant with the prayer to issue directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.15,58,000/- to the complainant including Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

Notice of the Complaint was issued to the OPs, who had filed their joint written reply. It was contested by them by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complaint was not maintainable. As per the allegations of the Complainant, he was not the Consumer qua the OPs. The District Commission had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the Complaint. It was averred that no cause of action had arisen to the Complainant to file the Complaint. It was also submitted that the Complainant could not have filed the Complaint within the local jurisdiction of the District Commission as he was a resident of Gurugaon, Haryana. The Complainant had not come with clean hands before the District Commission. He had suppressed material facts. On merits, it was admitted by the OPs that they had financed the vehicle and a loan agreement was duly executed between the parties. However, the allegations made in the complaint were denied. The Complaint was without merits and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

By considering the averments made in the Complaint, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was dismissed vide order dated 08.