Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/21/21

/SHRIRAM KIRAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FIN. SER. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.S.K.SAXENA

04 Feb 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2021

(Arising out of order dated 14.12.2020 passed in C.C.No.98/2019 by the District Commission, Guna)

 

SHRIRAM KIRAR & ORS.                                                                                  …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

                 

MANAGER, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE

SERVICE LIMITED & ANOTHER.                                                                      …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                        :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

 

04.02.2021

 

          None for the appellants.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :      

                   Perused the impugned order.

2.                     This appeal arises out of the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.98/2019 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants on the ground that in view of term existed in the agreement entered into between the parties for reference to the Arbitrator for deciding the dispute which may arise and the fact that before filing of the complaint on account of dispute Arbitrator was appointed, who had already decided the dispute by passing an award on 30.11.2018, the complaint is not maintainable.

3.                     This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the Arbitration proceedings were held behind the back of the appellants.  Be that as it may.  Since the matter had already been decided by the Arbitrator before filing of complaint before the District Commission, we find no ground for interference in the impugned order. (See 2007

-2-

(3) CPR 323 (NC) S. Balwant Singh Vs Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority followed by this Commission in Appeal No.1325/2011 Smt. Meena Khatri Vs Sahara India Ltd. decided on 10.01.2019). It is open for the complainant to seek appropriate remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

4.                     With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed.

 

 

                  (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)               (S. S. Bansal)           

                                President                                      Member