D.O.F:11/08/2020
D.O.O:29/01/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.91/2020
Dated this, the 29th day of January 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Muhammed Kasim. T K
S/O Hassan.T K alias Hassinar.T K
Thottumkara House,
Nekraje Village and post : Complainant
Kasaragod
Kerala
( Adv: Jayanth Lal.M )
And
- Magma Finance Corporation Ltd,
First Floor, Jain tower, Power house junction,
N H Baypass, Vytilla, Cochin – 682019
Ernakulam
Kerala
( Adv: Suresh. K P ) : Opposite parties
- Magma Finance Corporation Ltd,
Regional Office,
Magma House, 24 Park Street,
Kolkkatha
West Bengal - 700016
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Opposite party filed petition with producing loan agreement dated 02/01/2014 and copy of award by arbitrator dated 21/05/2015 and pressed for hearing the maintainability of the complaint:-
- The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s father availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party on 31/12/2013 for the vehicle loan KL-14 F 2011. His father died, before his death he cleared the loan dues. But opposite party claimed further amount and hence clearance certificate is delayed. He sent lawyer notice but no response from opposite party. Vehicle permit is not renewed. Due to the deficiency in service complainant put mental agony and financial loss, for which complainant claims compensation and cost. Hence the complaint.
- Instead of filing any version or any separate petition questioning maintainability of compliant. Opposite party pressed to hear maintainability. Complainant and opposite party were heard in detail.
- Point for consideration in case is whether consumer complaint is maintainable in view of passing arbitration award? If so for what reliefs?
- Complainants specific case is that he has cleared the entire loan amount and no amount is due thereon. But no document or receipts of payment is produced.
The Honourable NCDRC in M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd Vs Gulzar Ali, RP 3835 of 2013 decided on 17/04/2015, held as under.” It is well settled that terms and conditions of the agreement to this effect do not bar jurisdiction of the consumer fora but when the parties opt to proceed, first of all, before arbitration, in that event, the jurisdiction of this commission stand barred”
Similar view has been taken by the NCDRC in the following cases, Beverly Park Maintenance Service Ltd Vs Kashmir Fab Styles Pvt Ltd , 11 (2014) CPJ 109 (NC) T. Srinivas and another Vs Srija Constrictions, I (2016) CPJ 552 (NC) and Vishnu Chandra Sharma Vs Sriram Finance Company Ltd and other III (2017) CPJ 211 (NC).
- Here is a case that arbitration award is passed in the year 2015. The registered owner of the vehicle died in 2018. The consumer complaint is filed in 2020, after two years of death and after five years of award. No records produced to show that any appeal is filed by registered owner of vehicle against the arbitration award.
- From the above settled law position it is very clear that proceedings under the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act and that under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 can go together provided the condition are satisfied. But in the present case as arbitration award become final, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In view of findings entered on the points raised forum is of considered view that arbitration award being passed long before filing consumer complaint, complainant or original borrower did not file any appeal and arbitration award has since then become final, parties did not challenge the same on its merits, complainant is not entitled to any reliefs in the case. Thus complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
