State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Achhar Singh. vs L & T Finance Ltd. & Anr. on 18 September, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 310/2017
Date of Presentation: 12.12.2017
Order Reserved on : 03.07.2018
Date of Order : 18.09.2018
......
Achhar Singh S/o. Shri Kanshi Ram R/o. Village Kasan Post
Office Saigloo Tehsil Kotli District Mand H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. L & T Finance Ltd. Branch Office Sauli Khad through its
Branch Manager.
2. M/s. L & T Finance Ltd. through its Managing Director M.
Marg Ballard Estate Mumbai-400001.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : In person.
For Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Sharma vice Mr.
Aasheesh Patial Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.11.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.269/2015 titled Achhar Singh Versus L & T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Achhar Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No.HP-
65-4196. It is pleaded that complainant took loan from the opposite party to the tune of Rs.500000/-(Five lac). It is pleaded that loan was to be paid in sixty monthly installments. It is further pleaded that complainant failed to pay two installments. It is pleaded that opposite parties forcibly repossessed the vehicle of the complainant. It is pleaded that opposite parties sold the vehicle of complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle was insured with Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. in consideration amount of Rs.503500/-(Five lac three thousand five hundred). It is pleaded that opposite party sold the vehicle of complainant in meager consideration amount of Rs.205000/-(Two lac five thousand). It is pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of return of vehicle or to provide new vehicle of same model to the complainant. In addition complainant sought return of blank signed cheques obtained by opposite parties. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.100000/-(One lac). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
2
Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017)
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action. It is pleaded that vehicle was used for commercial purpose. It is pleaded that consumer complaint is barred in view of the Arbitration agreement. It is further pleaded that presale notice was given to the complainant and Smt. Drumanti Devi. It is pleaded that sale amount was adjusted in the loan account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that Smt. Drumanti Devi was co-borrower and Smt. Drumanti Devi is necessary party. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum Mandi on dated 17.03.2016 dismissed the consumer complaint. Thereafter complainant filed Appeal No.149/2016 before H.P. State Consumer Commission. H.P. State Commission on dated 14.07.2016 allowed the appeal filed by complainant and set aside the impugned order passed by learned District Forum. H.P. State Consumer Commission has remanded consumer complaint to learned District Forum with direction to decide the consumer complaint afresh after affording an opportunity to opposite parties to file version to complaint and then to afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence. State Commission further ordered that thereafter learned 3 Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) District Forum would decide the consumer complaint on merits. Thereafter learned District Forum again dismissed the consumer complaint on dated 02.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard appellant in person and learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to pass order under Consumer Protection Act 1986 after passing of final award by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 relating to same matter?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No.HP-65-4196. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was financed by opposite parties to the tune of Rs.500000/-(Five lac). There is recital in affidavit that loan was to be paid within sixty monthly installments commencing w.e.f. 10.04.2014 to 10.05.2019. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent could not pay two loan installments and thereafter vehicle was repossessed by the opposite parties 4 Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) and was sold in consideration amount of Rs.205500/-(Two lac five thousand five hundred). There is recital in affidavit that IDV value of vehicle was Rs.503500/-(Five lac three thousand five hundred). There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully.
8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Avdesh Jindal Assistant Manager Legal. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action to file consumer complaint. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has committed wilful default in payment of loan amount. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was repossessed strictly as per agreement executed inter se parties. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the complainant. We have perused all the annexures filed by opposite parties.
9. Submission of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for all reliefs sought in the consumer complaint is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that Award was passed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by sole Arbitrator namely Shri Pradip V. Bavkar on dated 16.04.2016. Arbitrator ordered that Shri Achhar Singh and Smt. Drumanti Devi would jointly and severally pay a 5 Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) sum of Rs.327434/-(Three lac twenty seven thousand four hundred thirty four) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.03.2015 till the realization of entire amount. Arbitrator further ordered that Shri Achhar Singh and Smt. Drumanti Devi would jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) as costs of proceedings. Arbitrator further ordered that Shri Achhar Singh and Smt. Drumanti Devi would pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) towards Arbitrator's fee.
10. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint on merits by State Commission under Consumer Protection Act 1986 in view of ruling reported in 2006(3) CPR 339 NC titled The Installment Supply Ltd. Versus Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. & Anr. See 2018(1) CLT 312 NC M/s. Manas Constructions Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & others. State Commission is of the opinion that Arbitrator has passed final Award under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 on dated 16.04.2016. It is well settled law that Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is an independent Act. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to pass contradictory order qua same matter. It is not expedient in 6 Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) the ends of justice to pass two contradictory orders by two independent statutory authorities.
11. Submission of complainant that Arbitration proceedings were not in the knowledge of complainant and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that remedy to complainant is to challenge Arbitration award before competent authority of law under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint on merits after passing of award under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 because Consumer Forum and Consumer Commission are not appellate authority qua final order passed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is held that final Award passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 could be challenged under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District or before Hon'ble High Court in exercise of original civil jurisdiction.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved 7 Achhar Singh Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.310/2017) facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that since final Award already stood passed under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 by sole Arbitrator Shri Pradip V. Bavkar on dated 16.04.2016 it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint on merits. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Award passed under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 by Arbitrator namely Shri Pradip V. Bavkar dated 16.04.2016 shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 18.09.2018 KD* 8