IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
Present:- Adv. Ravisusha,Member, President (I/C)
Adv. M. Praveen Kumar, Member
CC.No.55/2016
Rajesh : Complainant
S/o Yogidasan,
Road Puramboku,
Punnalavillage,
Kadakkamon,
Pathanapuram P.O
[By Adv.P.Basanth, Kollam]
V/s
1.Tata Motors Finance Ltd. : Opposite parties
1-Think Techno Campus Building-A,
IInd Floor , Off Pokhran Road 2,
Thane West:400601.
2.Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
First Floor, Manapurath Building,
NH-47, Pallimukku, Kollam-691010.
[By Adv.S.Renjith Kumar, Kollam]
ORDER
ADV.RAVISUSHA,MEMBER, PRESIDENT(I/C)
Complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing to sent/issue a copy of the hypothecation or lease agreement entered between the complainant and 1st opposite party in Loan Agreement No.5001119810 and ITS statement of payments made by the complainant, to deduct the insurance premium amount of Rs.11,016/-
(2)
for the year 2015-2016 paid by the complainant from the corresponding EMIs, and also issue an order of permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from taking possession of the vehicle described hereunder forcefully from the custody of the petitioner without complying the procedure established by law and for cost.
Complainant’s case is that complainant purchased a Tata magic Iris Motor Cab to be used as a taxi to earn his lively hood from Popular Mega Motors India Ltd. Kollam. The registration number of the vehicle is Kl.25D 9314. The vehicle was purchased on hire purchased scheme hypothecated with 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The total loan amount to the vehicle was Rs.2,33,000/-. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 21.12.2012. The EMI amount of Rs.7,250/- includes the insurance charge for the loan period. Even though the complainant had paid the installment up to 2.11.2015, the opposite party had not taken issued the insurance for the vehicle. It is the clear violation of terms in the hypothecation agreement. When he demanded the copy of hypothecation agreement, they were not ready to issue the agreement and the statement of payment details. That itself shows that the respondent is making unfair trade practice and deficient service.
(3)
On 29.01.2016, the 2nd opposite party over telephone threatened the complainant that if he would not pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- within one week, the vehicle would be ceased forcefully with the help of their men. He purchased the vehicle to meet his livelihood. He never made any default. He never made any breach of agreement. The opposite parties have no right to seize the vehicle illegally and forcefully.
This complaint is put forward by the opposite parties 1 and 2 to hear the question regarding maintainability of the case as a preliminary issue.
The main contentions raised by the opposite parties are that, on 26.12.2012, the complainant has availed a loan for an amount of Rs.2,33,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand only) from the 2nd opposite party company for the purchase of Tata Vehicle by executing a Loan agreement No.5001119810 dated 26.12.2012 in favour of opposite party company i.e M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. But the complainant violated the agreement and failed to repay the amount as agreed. The opposite party companies on several times demanded the complainant to clear arrears. But he is evading payment of the amount on lame excuses. As per the clause in the loan
(4)
agreement No.5001119810 dated 26.12.2012 the opposite party company initiated the arbitration proceedings against this complainant before the Hon’ble Arbitrator P.C Phalgunan Arbitrator Mumbai as claim petition No.TMFL/58697. Notice was served by the Arbitrator to the complainant to this case but he didn’t turn up. At last by taking evidence from the side of the opposite party company the Hon’ble Arbitrator passed the award on 17.07.2014 in Arbitration case No.TNFL/58697 and the copy of the award was send by the arbitrator to this complainant. As per the award the opposite party company is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.2,10,855/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 10.04.2014 till realization and also directed the opposite party company to take possession of the vehicle which is involved in the agreement dated 26.12.2012. Now the execution proceeding is pending. Since the matter already decided by the arbitrator dated 17.07.2014 this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain to any petition filed by this complainant.
The opposite party substantiated this contention by producing Arbitration Award dated 17.07.2014. This complaint is filed on 26.02.2016 i.e, after passing the Arbitration Award. As the complainant neither adduce any objection on this petition nor argued
(5)
this petition, we are constrained to rely upon the argument put forward by the Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
Since Arbitration Award has been passed prior to this complaint, we need not look into the other allegations raised by the complainant through this complaint.
In the result this petition is allowed and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. No order as to cost.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2016.
ADV.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-
ADV.M.PRAVEEN KUMAR:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
