National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Instalment Supply Ltd. vs Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. And ... on 5 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ34(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. 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.
2. M/s. Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Company complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased a new bus financed through M/s. S.K. & Co. National Highway, Kangra opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3,75,000 under hire purchase agreement. Respondent No. 1 had to repay the amount along with interest totalling Rs. 5,66,250 within a period of three years commencing from 1.1.1995. It is the say of respondent No. 1 that it had paid all the instalments and got a 'No Objection Certificate' for cancellation of the endorsement of hire purchase agreement which the registering authority had done vide order dated 19.4.2000. Suddenly on 27.5.2000 the petitioner who was opposite party No. 1 seized the vehicle. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the petitioner to return the bus and pay Rs. 2,000 per day from 27.5.2000 till the return of the bus with 18% interest and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000 for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000 as costs. Petitioner contested the complaint stating that the complaint is not maintainable as the bus was purchased under hire purchase system, secondly it is not aware of any dealing between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 was a habitual defaulter and he owes a sum of Rs. 1,84,100 upto 1.6.2000. Respondent No. 2 also filed reply-cum-affidavit. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint with certain directions. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of District Forum in the following terms:
We allow this appeal partly to the effect that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 along with interest of 9% per annum as awarded in the impugned order is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also reduce the amount of cost of litigation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000. However, we maintain the direction in the impugned order that the Bus bearing No. HP 40-1137 should be returned by the appellant to respondent No. 1 within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order passed in appeal.
3. Dissatisfied with the order of State Commission, the petitioner has filed the revision. It was contended by the Counsel of the petitioner that an arbitration award has been passed in this case which is binding on the parties. He further submitted that the complaint was barred by res judicata inasmuch as respondent No. 1 concealed from this Commission that all disputes between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had already been settled by arbitration in accordance with Arbitration Agreement contained in the said Hire Purchase Agreement (HPA). The award dated 5.9.2000 of the Arbitrator Mr. K.L. Bhendwal had already been published and delivered and the award takes into account all the payments made or due. In terms of said award, the respondent No. 1 owes the petitioner a sum of Rs. 58,114 towards arrears of hire money, interest and other charges under the said agreement. Though, this fact was brought to the notice of District Forum in the reply but was ignored. Further, in appeal memorandum before the State Commission, petitioner had brought the following facts before the notice of the State Commission:
The respondent No. 1 had concealed from the Hon'ble Forum that the complaint was barred by res judicata as the disputes between the appellant and respondent No. 1 had already been settled by arbitration in accordance with Arbitration Clause contained in the said Hire Purchase Agreement and in this behalf an award dated 5.9.2000 of the Arbitrator Mr. K.L. Bhendwal had already been published and delivered. The said award had taken into account all payments made or due under the said agreement, and has held that the respondent No. 1 owed the appellant a sum of Rs. 58,114 towards arrears of hire money, interest and other charges under the said agreement.
4. He also submitted that there was absolutely no proof on record that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to the said vehicle. The signatures of Director (Finance) of the petitioner filed clearly shows that the purported transfer of the said vehicle in respondent No. 1's name by Motor Licensing Authority, Kangra was based on forged 'No Objection' and the same is, therefore, void. There was no evidence on record to show that the respondent No. 1 had paid the dues under the Hire Purchase Agreement or that the re-possession of the vehicle by the petitioner was illegal. In any case, it was submitted that Registration Certificate of a vehicle is not the proof of title of ownerhsip and this has been so held by Delhi High Court in a case reported in AIR 1973 Delhi 115 and by Supreme Court of India in AIR 1969 SC 493. Besides this the petitioner has already provided specimen signature of the Managing Director of the petitioner company to the Investigating Officer, Kangra and the same has been sent to FSI. This aspect shall for once and for all settle the aspect of NOC. The matter if NOC is forged also requires in-depth investigation/trial which is not possible before the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Award was passed before complaint was filed by respondent No. 1. It will thus govern the dispute between the parties. In view of the decision of the Arbitrator which is binding on parties, the Fora below should not have passed an order by overlooking the award. Hence, this revision petition is allowed, orders passed by Fora below set aside and complaint dismissed.