Delhi District Court
Amrinder Singh vs Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd on 4 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE09: TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
Arbtn No. 158/15
Unique Case ID No. 02401C0545582015
Amrinder Singh
S/o Sh. Pritam Singh
H. No. 312, Ward No. 27,
Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana135001. ........... Petitioner.
VERSUS
Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office at Mookambika,
Complex, 3rd Floor, 4,
Lady Desika Road, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600004.
Branch Office :
At 3384, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. .........Respondent.
Date of institution of the petition : 09.10.2015
Date on which order was reserved : 28.04.2016
Date of decision : 04.05.2016
PETITION U/S 34 OF THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION
ACT AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 27.12.2014 PASSED BY
THE LD. SOLE ARBITRATOR
Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 1/9
JUDGMENT
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the objections/ petition U/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioner whereby the petitioner has challenged the arbitral award dated 27.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner, in the present petition, has stated that the respondent had provided the loan of Rs. 9,00,000/ to the petitioner against the commercial vehicle bearing registration no. HR55K2054 and the said loan was repayable by the petitioner in 33 equated monthly installments of Rs. 35,548/ each, commencing from 17.10.2011 as per the payment schedule of the agreement. It has been further stated that as per the agreement, the petitioner had to pay the total amount of Rs. 11,74,233/ and the last installment was to be paid on 20.06.2014. It has been further stated that the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident in the month of June, 2012. It has been further stated that the petitioner got the said vehicle repaired and claimed insurance as the vehicle of the petitioner was insured by Shri Ram General Insurance (respondent company) vide policy no. 10003/31/12/639389 and the said policy was valid till 14.03.2013. It has been further stated that the petitioner raised the claim amount of Rs. 90,000/, but, the respondent company only paid small amount of Rs. 8,548/, which shows the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent. It has been further stated that on 22.10.2012, the petitioner got fractured both his legs on account of some accident and he was admitted in the hospital. It has been further stated that the petitioner was bed ridden and not in a position to walk for Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 2/9 a period of 4 - 5 months. It has been further stated that Sh. Bachiter Singh and Sh. Rakesh Kumar, the two agents of the respondent company forcefully stopped the vehicle in question at Jagadhari, Yamunanagar, Haryana on 01.06.2013 and forcibly took away the commercial vehicle of the petitioner. It has been alleged by the petitioner that no notice demanding the payment of the installments was sent to the petitioner by the respondent. It has been further stated that no notice of the appointment of the Ld. Arbitrator was ever issued to the petitioner. It has been further stated that on 22.07.2013, with a view to extort more money from the petitioner, the respondent sold the commercial vehicle only for the sum of Rs. 4,90,000/, whereas, the market value of the vehicle on 22.07.2013 was nearly Rs. 15,00,000/. It has been further stated that on 20.09.2014, Sh. B.L. Garg was appointed as the Ld. Sole Arbitrator without giving any notice to the petitioner for invoking of the arbitration clause. It has been further stated that upon receipt of the notice of the arbitration proceedings dated 20.09.2014, the petitioner sent a letter dated 05.11.2014 to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator submitting therein that the petitioner was not having any faith in the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. It has been further stated that the petitioner, in the said letter dated 05.11.2014, raised an apprehension that the aforesaid Ld. Sole Arbitrator was biased as he was being regularly appointed as an Arbitrator by the respondent. It has been further stated that no declaration was given by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator on the aspect of his independence and impartiality in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been further stated that the letter dated 05.11.2014 was sent by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator by speed post and courier and the same was received by the Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 3/9 Ld. Sole Arbitrator on 17.11.2014. It has been further stated that however, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator did not pay any heed to the letter dated 05.11.2014 of the petitioner. It has been further stated that without giving any reply to the letter dated 05.11.2014 of the petitioner, the petitioner was proceeded exparte in the arbitration proceedings and thereafter, the award dated 27.12.2014 was passed by the Ld. Arbitrator. It has been further stated that the said award, which is an exparte award, is unreasoned, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It has been further stated that in the month of July, 2015, the respondent filed an execution petition before the Ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhari and the petitioner received the summons for the same in the last week of July, 2015. It has been further stated that till date, the petitioner has not received any signed copy of the award. It has been further stated that no service was effected upon the petitioner and as such, the said award dated 27.12.2014 is against the principles of natural justice. It has been further stated that the petitioner has already paid 14 installments, amounting to Rs. 4,63,299/ to the respondent and the commercial vehicle was sold on 22.07.2013 by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/ and therefore, the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs. 9,53,299/ to the respondent. It has been alleged that even then, the Ld. Arbitrator has awarded the amount of Rs. 7,63,275/ to the respondent, whereby, the respondent has been unjustifiably enriched. It has been further alleged that the agreement in question was an unilateral contract and the petitioner, who was a signatory to the abovesaid agreement, had no role to pay in the framing of the abovesaid loan agreement and as such, the said loan agreement Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 4/9 cannot be relied upon. It has been further stated that the petitioner gained the knowledge of the said award only in the last week of July, 2015 and as such, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation. It has been prayed that the arbitral award dated 27.12.2014 be set aside.
3. In the reply filed on record by the respondent, it has been stated that the objections have been filed by the petitioner with the sole aim and intention to make undue pressure upon the respondent. It has been further stated that the objections of the petitioner are merely an attempt to abuse the process of the law. It has been further stated that the present petition is highly barred by time as the arbitration award in question was passed on 27.12.2014 and the copy of the arbitral award was sent to the petitioner vide registered post on 30.12.2014 at the addresses provided by the petitioner to the respondent at the time of availing the loan from the respondent. It has been further stated that the address of the petitioner, as mentioned in the objections under reply, is the same as has been mentioned in the arbitral award and as such, the notice of the arbitration proceedings and that of the award as well, was sent to the petitioner and the same was received by the petitioner. It has been further stated that the arbitral award dated 27.12.2014 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity and irregularity. It has been further stated that the LoancumHypothecation Agreement dated 17.10.2011 was executed in between the petitioner and the respondent, whereby, an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ was provided to the petitioner against the commercial vehicle bearing no. HR55K2054. It has been further stated that the said loan was repayable by the petitioner in 33 monthly Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 5/9 installments of Rs. 35,548/ each and the last installment was to be paid on 20.06.2014. The respondent has denied that the vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident in the month of June 2012. It has been further denied that the vehicle of the petitioner was insured with Shri Ram General Insurance (respondent company) vide policy no. 10003/31/12/639389 and the said policy was valid till 14.03.2013. It has been further denied that the petitioner was paying regular monthly installments to the respondent. It has been denied for want of knowledge that on 22.10.2012, the petitioner got fractured his legs. It has been denied that the possession of the vehicle in question was forcibly taken over by the respondent. The respondent has taken the stand that as the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan amount, the respondent was left with no other option, but to repossess the vehicle in question in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed in between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1. It has been denied that no notice of payment was ever sent to the petitioner. It has been further stated that there is an arbitration clause in the loan agreement itself, which specifically states that in case of any dispute regarding the loan agreement, the matter has to be referred to the Ld. Arbitrator, who has to be appointed by the respondent. It has been denied that the vehicle in question was sold for the meager amount of Rs. 4,90,000/ on 22.07.2013, whereas, the market value of the same was Rs. 15,00,000/. It has been admitted by the respondent that it is true that the insurance cover note dated 11.03.2013 states the value of the vehicle to be Rs. 11,70,200/, but, it has been denied that the respondent sold the vehicle in question for the meager amount of Rs. 4,90,000/, when the market value Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 6/9 of the vehicle was more than Rs. 15,00,000/. It has been alleged by the respondent that the petitioner failed to approach to the respondent for release of the vehicle and as such, the respondent had no choice but to sell the vehicle in question at best available market price as the value of the vehicle in question was depreciating. It has been further stated that the petitioner himself had admitted that he received the notices of the arbitration proceedings. It has been denied that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is on the payroll of the respondent. It has been further stated that the alleged letter dated 05.11.2014 was never received by the Ld. Arbitrator. The respondent has alleged that despite the receipt of the arbitration proceedings on 20.09.2014, the petitioner failed to appear before the Ld. Arbitrator. The rest of the contents of the petition have been denied and it has been prayed that the objections/ petition of the petitioner be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. I have gone through the entire material available on record and heard the rival submissions of both the Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the arbitration proceedings, which were requisitioned by this Court from the Ld. Arbitrator.
5. A perusal of the present petition categorically reveals that the petitioner has himself admitted that he received the notice of the arbitration proceedings, which were fixed before the Ld. Arbitrator on 20.09.2014. The petitioner has himself stated that he sent a letter dated 05.11.2014 to the Ld. Arbitrator and the said letter was received by the Ld. Arbitrator. The petitioner has alleged that the said letter was not considered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator and rather, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 7/9 despite objections raised by the petitioner, proceeded to adjudicate upon the claim of the respondent herein. A perusal of the entire petition filed on record by the petitioner, to my mind, irresistibly leads to only one conclusion that the petitioner was well aware about the pendency of the arbitration proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator and he had duly received the notices from the Ld. Arbitrator, but, despite the same, the petitioner chose not to appear in the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator. To my mind, even if the submissions of the petitioner are taken to be prima facie correct to the extent that the letter dated 05.11.2014 was received by the Ld. Arbitrator, the same was not sufficient on the part of the petitioner. Ld. Arbitrator had issued the notices to the petitioner to appear before the Ld. Arbitrator and to participate in the proceedings, but, admittedly, the petitioner failed to appear and to participate in the proceedings conducted by the Ld. Arbitrator.
6. Furthermore, it has to be seen that the address of the petitioner, which has been furnished by none other, but, by the petitioner himself in the present petition is the same, which has been furnished in the loan agreement and in the award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator. The petitioner himself has admitted in the present petition that there was a default on his part in the payment of the installments. The vehicle was repossessed by the respondent, but, there is nothing on record on the part of the petitioner to show that he ever approached to the respondent for release of the vehicle in question. I am of the opinion that there is nothing on record to show that the vehicle in question was sold by the respondent for the meager amount of Rs. 4,90,000/ on 22.07.2013, Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 8/9 despite the fact that the market value of the vehicle at the relevant time was Rs. 15,00,000/. To my mind, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate his abovesaid allegations.
7. The award was passed on 27.12.2014 by the Ld. Arbitrator after considering the entire evidence available on record and the documents placed on record by the respondent. The ordersheet dated 27.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator states that the copy of the award was directed to be sent to the parties. The postal registered receipts are there in the record of the Ld. Arbitrator to show that the copy of the award was sent to the petitioner on 30.12.2014. As stated hereinabove, there is no change in the address of the petitioner.
8. As such, I am of the opinion that it is presumed that the signed copy of the award was received by the petitioner well in time. It is not in dispute that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner on 12.10.2015. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the present petition is not only beyond the period of limitation as provided U/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but, the same also does not fall within the ambit and purview of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As a result, the present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order alongwith the file of the Ld. Arbitrator be sent back immediately against receipt.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (RAJ KUMAR)
on this 4th day of May, 2016. ADJ09 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Arbtn No.158/15 Page No. 9/9