Order No.  21  dt.  07/02/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into a loan / hire purchase agreement with o.p. for purchasing a vehicle. It was decided that the complainant would pay Rs.10,040/- per month. The complainant was paying the said amount month by month and in such manner he paid Rs.1,50,600/- out of total amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. In spite of payment of said amount the complainant was threatened by o.p. that they would take possession of the vehicle. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for relief against the o.p. for adopting unfair trade practice and also prayed for litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

            The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.p. agreed to extend the financial assistance to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant and it was decided that the complainant would pay Rs.10,040/- per month and the entire amount would be liquidated in 35 EMIs. The complainant paid only m7 EMIs and paid a part of 18 installment and neglected to pay the subsequent installments. While o.p. claimed the said amount from the complainant the complainant filed this case. Apart from the said fact o.p. started arbitration proceeding against the complainant and an award was also passed. In order to bypass the said award the complainant filed this case. in view of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            On perusal of the record as well as the evidence adduced by both the parties it appears that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchasing a vehicle with o.p. and hire purchase agreement was executed by the parties to that effect and it was decided that the complainant would pay Rs.10,040/- per month and the complainant would liquidate the entire amount in 35 EMIS. But from the materials on record it appears that the complainant paid 17 installments regularly and 18 installment paid in part and subsequent installment the complainant failed to pay. The o.p. being a financer issued notice upon the complainant asking for the due amount. Since in the hire purchase agreement it was decided that in case of non payment of the amount as well as in case of violation of the agreement in the hire purchase the parties can go for arbitration proceeding. As per the terms and conditions of the said hire purchase agreement the arbitration proceeding was started at the instance of o.p. The Arbitrator passed an award and in order to bypass the said fact the complainant filed this case. Whenever an arbitration has been started by the financer if it takes possession of the vehicle that cannot be termed as deficiency in service which has been held by Hon’ble National Commission in a judgment reported in II (2016) CPJ 231 (NC). On perusal of the said judgment as well as the materials on record we hold that the complainant in order to stop the o.p. for realization of the amount which the complainant agreed to pay for purchasing of the vehicle and on failure to pay the said amount in the agreement itself it was stated that o.p. can take possession of the vehicle. Since o.p. took the measure as per the terms and conditions of the agreement itself and also in conformity with the provisions of the said agreement went for arbitration proceeding and Arbitrator was appointed and award was also passed by the said Arbitrator, therefore we hold that the step taken by the Arbitrator or by o.p. cannot terms as a deficiency in service regarding repossession of the vehicle and accordingly we hold that the case is not maintainable, as such, we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.400/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.    

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.