Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 418
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. C. VISWANATH, PM, MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA, M
MIR ALAM – Appellant
Versus
MAGMA FINANCE CORPORATION – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1892 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anurag Bindal
For the Respondents: Mr. Suman Tripathy
Consumers cannot pursue claims under the Consumer Protection Act if an arbitration award already resolves the same dispute.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Consumer complaint against repossession of vehicle held not maintainable due to existence of an arbitration award - The consumer protection authorities cannot exercise appellate powers over an arbitrator’s award. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) The remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is additional and does not supersede arbitration remedies; if arbitration is opted, complaints before consumer forums may not stand. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a consumer complaint regarding the repossession of a truck it financed, alleging unfair practices by the finance company, which had repossessed the truck following an arbitration award due to non-payment.
Findings of Court:
The Arbitrator’s award was final under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, making the consumer complaint not maintainable.
Issues: The primary issue was the maintainability of the consumer complaint in light of the arbitration proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if a party elects an arbitration route, it cannot pursue remedies under the Consumer Protection Act for the same dispute, underscoring the finality of the arbitration award.
Result: Revision dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and petition against previous orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the consumer complaint and interim measures. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. developments in the original forum and subsequent decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by counsel and judicial findings on jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final decision and implications. (Para 9) |
1. Heard Mr. Anurag Bindal, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Suman Tripathy, Advocate, for the respondent.
2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha dated 28.06.2019 passed in R.P. No. 24 of 2018 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak dated 05.02.2018, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 74/2017), whereby District Forum, has directed the opposite party to deliver possession of the case vehicle to the petitioner within 10 days and the revision has been allowed holding that in view of Arbitrator’s award, in the matter in dispute, consumer complaint was not maintainable and it has been dropped.
3. Mir Alam (the petitioner) filed Consumer Complaint No. 74/2017, for restraining the opposite party to repossess the truck (bearing registration No. OD-01, M-0554), to issue no objection certificate for deleting endorsement of hypothecation, from the truck, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, to pay cost of the litigation and any other relief to which the complainant will be entitled. It has been stated that the complainant purchased the truck (bearing registration No. OD-01, M-0554), for Rs.24 lakhs, in which the opposite party had financed Rs.18,14,477/- on 31.12.2014, after executing a loan agreement. Till the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant had paid Rs.19,51,000/- but the opposite party was charging exorbitant interest against guide lines of Reserve Bank of India and showing dues. On 05.10.2017, the muscle men of the opposite party tried to repossess the truck, when the truck was near Bishunpurbindha but due to interference of general public, they could not succeed but they gave threatening to repossess the truck later on. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.
4. District Forum granted ex-parte interim injunction, dated 13.10.2017, restraining the opposite party from repossessing the truck in question during pendency of the complaint. The petitioner then filed another application, alleging that in violation of the interim injunction, the opposite party repossessed the truck and they may be restrained from selling the truck. On which, District Forum issued show cause notice, fixing 25.10.2017. The opposite party did not appear on the date fixed as such District Forum by order dated 30.10.2017, directed the concerned police station to insure, the attendance of the opposite party on 13.11.2017. The petitioner again filed an application on 21.12.2017, restraining the opposite party from selling the truck.
5. The opposite party appeared on 08.11.2017 and filed its written statement, in which, the fact relating to finance of Rs.18,14,477/- on 31.12.2014, after executing a loan agreement, for purchasing the truck and its hypothecation was admitted. It has been stated that the complainant had committed serious defaults in payment of the instalment of the loan. When in spite of the demand notices being served, the complainant did not turn up for payment of the instalments of the loan, then invoking arbitration clause under the loan agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The complainant did not appear before the Arbitrator also in spite of the notice as such, the Arbitrator gave in his ex-parte award, holding the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 21,79, 342/- on 28.04.2016. In execution of Arbitrator’s award dated 28.04.2016, the opposite party repossessed the truck on 10.09.2017, after serving inventory upon the driver the truck. The opposite party gave a pre-sale notice to the complainant on 21.09.2017, giving him an option to pu
