Alavilli Venkata Raju,
S/o Sankara Thathaji,
Channel Manager, Tata Tele Services,
Resident of D.No.14-4-20,
Kothapeta, Gowdu Street, Vizianagaram. …Complainant

And

1. The Branch Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Branch Office, D.No.8-2-98,
1st Floor, Maruthi Complex,
Vizianagaram.

2. Junior Accounts Officer,
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Main Road, Dabagardens,
Vizianagaram.

3. The Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Head Office, D.No.3-6-478,
3rd Floor, Anand Estates,
Himayath Nagar,
Hyderabad- 500 029 …Opposite parties


This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.V.B.L. Parameswara and Sri D.Swaroop Kumar Advocates for complainant and of Sri P.V.Subba Rao and Sri P.V.Ganesh, Advocates for opposite parties and having stood over the consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

1. This is a complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to (a) pay a sum of Rs.9,887/- towards financial loss, (b) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant (c) to pay interest and (d) Costs.

2. Briefly the complainant’s case is that he purchased T.V.S flame motor bike by availing finance from the opposite parties. The cost of the said vehicle was Rs. 57,372/- out of which, down payment made by the complainant was Rs.24,000/-. The balance was Rs. 33,372/- inclusive of tax and insurance financed by opposite parties 1 and 2 which is repayable in 12 monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 2,781/-. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have obtained accordingly 12 cheques. An agreement was executed between the parties reducing the terms and conditions. The third opposite party presented three cheques and realized the amount. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties offering to pay the entire balance amount in advance. The opposite parties demanded Rs. 26,500/- which is paid by the complainant. The opposite parties have issued “No Objection Certificate” but failed to return the remaining 9 cheques to the complainant in spite of several demands. The opposite parties with an oblique motive presented three cheques and realised Rs. 8,343/- thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant

3. That the complainant has availed personal loan from H.D.F.C Bank Visakhapatnam earlier. He used to issue cheque every month to the said bank for repayment of the loan or installments, consequent upon opposite parties 1 and 2 presenting the three cheques after the entire loan due to opposite parties was cleared off, the funds available in the complainants bank account became insufficient to Honour the Cheques presented by the H.D.F.C. Bank. The bank charged Rs.1,544/- against the three bounced Cheques. Further the complainant incurred loss of Rs.8,343/- being the total amount of the three Cheuqes presented by opposite parties, that there is deficiency of service causing mental agony and hardship.

4. Opposite party No 1 filed counter denying the material allegations. It is contended that the Cheques colleted from the complainant were sent to the administrative office at Chennai who deposited them for collection. The first opposite party intimated the fact of subsequent clearance of entire loan to the Chennai Head Office, but the said intimations was not received in time. The first opposite party so as to maintain cordial relationship with his customers, has deposited Rs. 9,887/- by way of account payee Cheque on 12/03/2009. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. The complainant filed affidavit along with complaint and marked E.X.ts A 1 to A6. for the opposite party no affidavit and no documents are filed . Heard both sides, perused the documents and affidavit. The point for consideration is weather there is deficiency of service?

6. The alleged hire purchase loan transaction where under finance was availed by complainant from opposite parties, the subsequent discharge of the entire loan by complainant is not in dispute. Similarly there is no dispute, the opposite parties have presented three Cheques and realised Rs.8,343/- from the complainant’s account, after entire loan was cleared off is also not in dispute. The facts and circumstances clearly establish deficiency of service causing mental agony and hardship. The explanations offered by Opposite Party. No1 is that he intimated the fact of clearance of loan by the complainant but that intimation did not reach in time as such the Administrative office at Chennai presented the three cheques. As seen the first Opposite Party deposited an Account Payee Cheque with this Forum for Rs. 9,987/- for payment to the complainant. The said Cheque was deposited after the complaint is field and when the matter was at the stage of filing counter by Opposite Parties. The deficiency of service is abundant so as to cause mental agony and hardship to an innocent complainant
7.In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Parties to pay (a) Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and (b) Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs. The complainant already received the Cheque for Rs.9,989/- (Rupees nine thousand, nine hundred and eighty nine only).

K.N.Ramesh,

s/o late Neelappa.K,

Valagunda Village,

Abburkatte Post,

Somwarpet Taluk

Kodagu.



V/S


OPPOSITE PARTY/IES



1. The Manager,

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Manjunatha Krupa, Chowki,

Madikeri.



2. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

No.286/48, 3rd Floor, Indira Towers,

11th Cross, Wilson Garden,

Bangalore-27






O R D E R





The complainant claims to be the customer of Opposite Parties, has availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Parties for the purpose of purchasing consumer goods and had issued 12 cheques in favour of the Opposite Parties (as EMIs ). But the OPs after encashing 5 cheques (towards EMIs) have returned the rest of the cheques (But complainant has made available copies of only 6 cheques instead of 7 cheques furnished along with the complaint) have been returned to the complainant saying that the loan dues has been cleared and that the ops have promised to send the clearance certificate /Receipts through post .


But after a lapse of one and half years or so, the complainant has received a summons/ notice from a single Arbitrator Bangalore on initiating the case by Opposite Parties for the recovery of dues which amounts to fraud and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence the complainant by filing the instant complaint seeks direction to the Opposite Parties to reject the Arbitration and to recover the amount (dues) from the officers concerned of Opposite Parties and to award compensation for the agony the complainant suffered etc.,



The complainant has furnished the copies of 6 cheques (each for Rs.2,275/-) and copies of summons/notice issued to the complainant in Arbitration case No. 3507/09. filed before a single Arbitrator. So it is apperant that there is an Arbitration case pending for adjudication on the same subject matter / transation as on the date of filing of this complaint. The clause No 14.1 of the terms & condition of Loan cum Hypothication agreement entered into between the parties reads as under:-

· “Any and all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of or in connection with this agreement or its performance shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Chennai in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitrator as may be appointed by the Lender. The reference to the arbitrator shall be within the clause, terms and conditions of the agreement . The Arbitrator shall be competent to decide whether any matter of dispute or difference referred to him falls within the purview of arbitration as provided for above /or for any relating to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . 1996. The Award given by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties concerned”.



So, the dispute if any arises between the parties regarding the transaction in question appear to be same and the same to be solved through single Arbitrator which becomes final.



Moreover, point (ix) at page 61 under sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act (Second Edition) forwarded by Hon’ble Justice S.K.Durbey, is clear by refering the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sawhney Builders Pvt Ltd., V/s Punjab Small Industries and Export reported in 1992(1) CPJ 271, which reads as under:-



· Dispute forming subject matter of petition already referred to Arbitration. Held, it is not proper for National Commission to conduct concurrent adjudication.



Therefore, looking from any angle, it is clear that the instant complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum invoking sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Hence the following order


O R D E R



The complaint is hereby rejected as not admissible. No costs.

Mohanraj,

S/o.R.Palaniyandi,

South Eri Machine Street,

Mannachanallur & Taluk,

Tiruchirappalli District

621 005.. …. Complainant



- Versus -



1) M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manager, 221, Royapettah

High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.



2) M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Rep.by its Branch Manager, Car Loan Division,

23, Pudukkottai Main Road, Kallukuzhi,

Trichy-620 020. … Opposite parties





This complaint coming on for hearing before us on 29th day of September, 2009 in the presence of Thiru K.Kannan, Counsel for Complainant on record, Thiru M.Kannan, Counsel for Opposite parties, Complainant called absent and this Forum passed the following:

ORDER





This complaint is prayed for directing the opposite parties to take emergent steps for renewing the permit for the Tourist car, Regn.No.TN 45 L 2351 and for effecting name transfer to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-towards compensation for mental agony as the Tourist care idle for the past 14 months due to the failure on the part of both opposite parties in renewing the permit and to pay Rs.16,000/- per month from the date of filing this complaint till the date of renewal, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards the expenses for making the vehicle to be fit plying on the road which was kept idle due to failure on the part of the opposite parties along with cost of the proceedings.





No representation on the side of complainant. Complaint posted for enquiry finally. Complainant side not turned up for enquiry even as a last chance. Complainant called absent. Complaint dismissed for default.







Pronounced by us in open Forum today, the 29th day of September, 2009.

K.N.Ramesh,

s/o late Neelappa.K,

Valagunda Village,

Abburkatte Post,

Somwarpet Taluk

Kodagu.



V/S


OPPOSITE PARTY/IES



1. The Manager,

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Manjunatha Krupa, Chowki,

Madikeri.



2. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

No.286/48, 3rd Floor, Indira Towers,

11th Cross, Wilson Garden,

Bangalore-27






O R D E R






The complainant claims to be the customer of Opposite Parties, has availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from the Opposite Parties for the purpose of purchasing consumer goods and had issued 12 cheques in favour of the Opposite Parties (as EMIs ). But the OPs after encashing 5 cheques (towards EMIs) have returned the rest of the cheques (But complainant has made available copies of only 6 cheques instead of 7 cheques furnished along with the complaint) have been returned to the complainant saying that the loan dues has been cleared and that the ops have promised to send the clearance certificate /Receipts through post .


But after a lapse of one and half years or so, the complainant has received a summons/ notice from a single Arbitrator Bangalore on initiating the case by Opposite Parties for the recovery of dues which amounts to fraud and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence the complainant by filing the instant complaint seeks direction to the Opposite Parties to reject the Arbitration and to recover the amount (dues) from the officers concerned of Opposite Parties and to award compensation for the agony the complainant suffered etc.,



The complainant has furnished the copies of 6 cheques (each for Rs.2,275/-) and copies of summons/notice issued to the complainant in Arbitration case No. 3507/09. filed before a single Arbitrator. So it is apperant that there is an Arbitration case pending for adjudication on the same subject matter / transation as on the date of filing of this complaint. The clause No 14.1 of the terms & condition of Loan cum Hypothication agreement entered into between the parties reads as under:-

· “Any and all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of or in connection with this agreement or its performance shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Chennai in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitrator as may be appointed by the Lender. The reference to the arbitrator shall be within the clause, terms and conditions of the agreement .


The Arbitrator shall be competent to decide whether any matter of dispute or difference referred to him falls within the purview of arbitration as provided for above /or for any relating to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . 1996. The Award given by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties concerned”.



So, the dispute if any arises between the parties regarding the transaction in question appear to be same and the same to be solved through single Arbitrator which becomes final.



Moreover, point (ix) at page 61 under sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act (Second Edition) forwarded by Hon’ble Justice S.K.Durbey, is clear by refering the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sawhney Builders Pvt Ltd., V/s Punjab Small Industries and Export reported in 1992(1) CPJ 271, which reads as under:-



· Dispute forming subject matter of petition already referred to Arbitration. Held, it is not proper for National Commission to conduct concurrent adjudication.



Therefore, looking from any angle, it is clear that the instant complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum invoking sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable. Hence the following order