Haryana

Karnal

CC/115/2020

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HDB Financial Service Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Bhatt

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 115 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.20.02.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 24.02.2020

 

Arun Kumar son of Shri Krishan aged 34 years resident of Bali Nagar, Gharaunda, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s HDB Financial Services Limited, a non Banking Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at Radhika 2^nd floor, Law Garden road Navrangpura Ahmadabad 380009, through its branch office HDB Financial Services Ltd. S.C.O. no.234 sector 12, Karnal through its S.P.A. Mohinder Kapoor.

2. M/s Magma H.D.I. Gen. Ins. Company Limited S.C.O. 12, Sector 3 HSIDC, near Namastey Chowk Karnal. (phone no.0164-3322308).

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Rajinder S.Bhatt Advocate for complainant.

                                              

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

                  

                   Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had obtained a loan from OP no.1 for the purchase of Truck bearing registration no.HR-56A-2840 and had pledged the said vehicle with the OP no.1 and complainant had been making the payment of the installments of the loan amount as per schedule/agreement. The said vehicle of complainant was stolen on the intervening night 1^st and 2^nd March, 2016 from the premises of the complainant and after making enquiry through search, the complainant failed to search the vehicle. The complainant lodged a report with the police of Police Station Gharaunda and on the basis of said complaint, case FIR no.0122 was registered on 15.03.2016. The insurance of the vehicle in quest was valid upto 22.06.2016. The complainant had also informed the OP no.2 i.e. insurance company regarding the theft of the vehicle. However, after the investigation of the case, the police had filed the untraced report vide report dated 10.05.2016. The complainant has been making the payment of the installments as per the schedule but since the vehicle in question was stolen so the complainant had stopped making the payment of the installments as it was OP no.2 being insurer was liable to make the payment of the loan amount to OP no.1.

2.             It is further alleged that OP no.1 instead of approaching the OP no.2 being insurer to recover the loan amount standing due at that time. OP no.1 having headquarters at Channai had obtained arbitration award against the complainant without giving him any notice. The complainant had never evaded the service of notice of the alleged award nor refused to receive the same. Since the complainant had not joined the arbitration proceedings, so exparte award was obtained by OP no.1 by filing arbitration proceedings at Chennai, vide award dated 07.11.2017 and thereby the complainant has suffered mental and financial loss due to the act and conduct of the OP no.1. Since the complainant has been paying the installments of loan to the OP no.1 regularly and only had stopped the payment of the same when the vehicle in question was stolen and despite through investigation, it was not traced and as such it was the OP no.2 who was responsible to make good the loss allegedly suffered by the OP no.1. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant have gone through the facts mentioned in the complaint.

3.             The vehicle of the complainant was stolen in the intervening night of 1^st and 2^nd March, 2016 and FIR in this regard was lodged on 15.03.2016. The untraced report submitted by the police in the court on 10.05.2016, so the cause of action accrued on 10.05.2016 but the present complaint was filed on 20.02.2020 after about four years of accrual of cause of action. No application for condonation of delay is filed by the complainant and no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the complaint within limitation. As per section 24A of Consumer Protection Act “The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.” Hence as per the provision of law the present complaint is time barred. Hence, the same is not maintainable.

4.             Further, complainant himself mentioned in his complaint the matter was referred to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed the Arbitration award dated 07.11.2017. When the Arbitrator has passed the award, the complaint of the complainant before this Forum is not maintainable. In this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2017(2) CLT 529 (NC) titled as Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Manoj Mangal wherein it is held that Arbitration Award passed before the order passed in Consumer complaint and Award had neither been challenged anywhere, nor the same had been set aside by any competent court, the said award had attained finality. The Revision petition allowed by way of dismissing the complaint of the complainant.

In the present case also the arbitration award has already been passed by the arbitrator. The authority mentioned above is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the authority, we are of the considered view that the present complaint of the complainant is also not maintainable.

5.             In view of above discussion, the present complaint is time barred and also not maintainable, hence the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. The party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:24.02.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member