Appeal No.434/09

Ram Niwas Pareek V. M/s G.E.Countrywide Consumer Financial Service Ltd. & anr.


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri D.D.Khandelwal,counsel for the appellant




Date of judgement: 2.4.2009


Heard at admission stage.


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 20.2.09 passed by the District Forum-I,Jaipur in complaint no.1262/08,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.


It may be stated here that the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents before the District Forum-I,Jaipur interalia stating that he had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the respondents and the amount of the loan was paid by the complainant appellant and no due certificate was issued,even then a demand notice for a sum of Rs.20,923/- was wrongly issued on 8.4.05 by the respondents. It was further stated in the complaint that the Sole Arbitrator had also passed the award of Rs.20,223/- against the complainant appellant and for quashing that the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondents and their case was that on

2


15.4.05 the complainant appellant was ordered to deposit Rs.13,000/- which was not deposited by the complainant appellant and thereafter the award was passed. Hence no case,complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties, through the impugned order had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that when the award has been passed,the District Forum had no jurisdiction.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.


In this appeal,the learned counsel for the complainant appellant has stated that a sum of Rs.13,000/- had been paid by the complainant appellant to the respondents and thus,findings recorded by the District Forum be quashed and appeal be allowed.


In our considered opinion,the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed are liable to be confirmed one as when award has been passed,the District Forum would have no jurisdiction to hear the same matter involved in the Arbitration Proceedings.


If according to the complainant appellant he had paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the respondents,it is for the respondents to adjust that amount or this question could be raised by the complainant appellant before the appropriate Forum,where the proceedings of the award could be challanged, but award could not be challanged before the District Forum as the District Forum is not a proper Forum for challanging the award.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However,liberty is given to the complainant appellant to approach the

3



appropriate Forum for challanging the award and for that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(III) SCC 583. It is further made clear that the respondents are free to adjust Rs.13,000/- if paid by the complainant appellant.




Member President