State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & ... vs Sh. Sagar Singh. on 29 August, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 283/2017
Date of Presentation: 06.11.2017
Order Reserved on : 03.04.2019
Date of Order : 29.08.2019
......
1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Branch Office at
1st First Floor Hotel Jai Building Dharamshala Road Kangra
District Kangra H.P through its Branch Manager.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Administrative
Office at 4th Floor A Wing Aggarwal Trade Centre Sector-11
CBD Belpur Navi Mumbai Maharashtra-440614 through its
Adminstrator.
3. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Branch Office at
Opposite Main Power House Dhangu Road Pathankot
Punjab.
...... Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Sagar Singh son of Shri Gorkhu Ram R/o Village Saneka P.O.
Dhaneti Bhurian Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra (H.P).
......Respondent /Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellants : Mr. Ravinder vice Mr. Ashwani Kaundal
Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Arush Matlotia Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 05.10.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 Commission (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) in consumer complaint No.27/2017 titled Sagar Singh Versus Shriram Transport Finance Limited & Ors. Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Sagar Singh filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant purchased vehicle No.HP-38D-1094 in consideration amount of Rs.338000/-(Three lac thirty eight thousand) in the year 2014. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was financed from Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. and complainant obtained loan amount to the tune of Rs.250000/-(Two lac twenty five thousand) which was payable in 59 monthly installments commencing from 20.07.2014 to June 2019. It is pleaded that opposite parties in connivance with each other took forcible possession of vehicle in question from Nurpur and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of return of vehicle in question. In alternative complainant sought refund of Rs.172559/-(One lac seventy two thousand five hundred fifty nine) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.50000/-(Fifty thousand) for mental agony and harassment. In addition complainant sought relief of 2 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 payment of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that opposite parties granted loan to complainant to the tune of Rs.250000/-(Two lac twenty five thousand) which was payable in 59 monthly installments. It is pleaded that complainant did not pay loan amount. It is pleaded that opposite party already initiated proceedings under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Commission ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2.75 lacs as compensation within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Consumer Commission further ordered that failing which it would carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint till actual payment. Learned District Consumer Commission further ordered opposite parties to pay Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) towards mental harassment. In addition learned District Consumer Commission ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand). 3
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice to pass order under Consumer Protection Act 1986 when Award already stood passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 relating to similar matter inter se parties?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased vehicle in question in consideration amount of Rs.338000/-(Three lac thirty eight thousand) in the year 2014. There is recital in affidavit that deponent financed his vehicle through opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 granted loan to deponent to the tune of Rs.250000/-(Two lac twenty five thousand) which was to be paid in 59 monthly installments w.e.f. 20.07.2014 to June 2019. There is recital in affidavit that 4 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 opposite parties in connivance with each other on 28.09.2016 without any information and knowledge forcibly took possession of vehicle in question from Nurpur when deponent was coming alongwith his family. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent has paid an amount of Rs.172559/- (One lac seventy two thousand five hundred fifty nine) to opposite parties till 30.09.2016. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties forcibly took possession of vehicle in question and committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practices. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Vishal Sharma retainer Advocate of M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that complainant obtained loan from opposite parties and loan amount to the tune of Rs.82672/-(Eighty two thousand six hundred seventy two) was due to opposite parties from complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has voluntarily surrendered his vehicle in question with opposite party No.3 at Pathankot with keys. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that Arbitration Award No.03/PTNK/SR/ RK/FEB 2017 was passed against complainant by Arbitrator 5 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 on 29.05.2017 before passing of final order by learned District Consumer Commission under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and learned District Consumer Commission was not legally competent to passed any contrary order against appellants under Consumer Protection Act after passing of Arbitration Award in favour of appellants is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused Arbitration Award annexure-OP-9 placed on record. It is proved on record that final Award was passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on 29.05.2017. Arbitrator namely Miss Rajinder Kaur has passed Award on dated 29.05.2017 in favour of Shriram Transport Finance Company and against Shri Sagar Singh complainant and Rajeev Gupta to the effect that (1) Shri Sagar Singh and Rajeev Gupta would jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.87825/-(Eighty seven thousand eight hundred twenty five) to M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing Arbitration petition till its actual payment (2) That Shri Sagar Singh and Rajeev Gupta would pay an amount of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand) towards Arbitrator fee and would pay Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) as expenses of proceedings before Arbitrator.
10. State Commission is of the opinion that after passing of Award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 6 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to pass contradictory order under Consumer Protection Act 1986. See 2018(1) CLT 312 NC M/s. Manas Constructions Versus L&T Finance Ltd. & others. See 2016(II) CPJ 231 NC titled Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Gulzar Ali. See 2017(III) CPJ 211 NC titled Vishnu Chandra Sharma Versus Sriram Finance Company Ltd. & Anr. See 2018(III) CPJ 380 NC titled Lalit Kumar Dangi Versus Kalpana P. Sanghavi & Anr. See 2007(1) CPJ 34 NC titled Instalment Supply Ltd. Versus Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Co. & Anr.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Consumer Commission is strictly in accordance with laws and strictly in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant obtained loan from opposite parties to the tune of Rs.250000/-(Two lac fifty thousand) and it is proved on record that complainant did not pay loan amount and amount to the tune of Rs.87825/-(Eighty seven thousand eight hundred twenty five) was due to opposite parties from complainant. It is proved on record that loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed between complainant and opposite parties and as per law under hire purchase agreement it is financier who is owner in 7 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 possession of vehicle and a person who obtained loan retains vehicle only as bailee/trusty. See 2012(II) CPJ 8 (SC) titled Suryapal Singh Versus Siddha Vinayak Motors & Anr. See AIR 1979 SC 850 titled Trilok Singh and others Versus Satya Deo Tripathi. See 1996(7) Supreme Court Cases 212 titled K.A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. Versus Kora Bibbikutty & Anr.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that Arbitration Award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was passed against complainant ex-parte and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that Award passed by Arbitrator under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 could not be challenged under Consumer Protection Act but could be challenged only under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 before Arbitration Court. Consumer Authority is not Arbitration Court under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In view of above stated facts and case laws cited supra State Commission is of the opinion that order passed by learned District Consumer Commission warrants interference by State Commission in order to avoid conflicting orders by two independent statutory authority. It is held that order of learned District Consumer Commission is contrary to laws and same deserves interference by State Commission. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. 8
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Sagar Singh F.A. No.283/2017 Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is allowed and order passed by learned District Consumer Commission (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) announced in consumer complaint No.27/2017 decided on 05.10.2017 titled Sagar Singh Versus Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. & Ors is set aside. Consumer complaint No.27/2017 is dismissed in view of fact that Award already stood passed against complainant under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Arbitration Award Annexure-OP-9 dated 29.05.2017 shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.
14. File of learned District Consumer Commission 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 Sunita Sharma Member 29.08.2019 K.D 9