s/o late Neelappa.K,
1. The Manager,
Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
Manjunatha Krupa, Chowki,
2. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
No.286/48, 3rd Floor, Indira Towers,
11th Cross, Wilson Garden,
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.