Delhi

StateCommission

A/399/2019

MR. MUNNA LAL AGARWAL (DECEASED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 25.07.2019

Date of Decision:  05.08.2019

First Appeal No.399/2019

In the matter of:-

 

MunnaLalAggarwal,

S/o. Late Shri R.C. Aggarwal,

R/o. B-2/7, Sector-17,

Rohini, Delhi-110089.                                                      .........Appellant

 

Versus

1. Tata Motors Ltd.,

G.B. Ganj, Bareilly, UP-243001.

 

2. Tata Motors Ltd.,

24. H.M. Street, Mumbai-400001.

 

3. Tata Motors Ltd.,

A-25, NarianaIndl. Area,

               New Delhi.

4. Tata Motors Ltd.,

Haldwani (Nainital),

•                    .                            …....Respondents Parties.

CORAM:   Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                        Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Complaint has come in present appeal against order dated 04.05.19 passed by District Forum North west dismissing the complaint.
2. Case set up by the appellant was that he paid Rs.36,000/- by cheque from his account out of settlement with OPs-2 and 3 but did not receive NOC from OPs. OP-1 failed to supply copies of signed documents executed at the time of grant of finance by OP-1. He sent letter dated 17.08.06 to OP-4 and notice dated 17.03.09 to Ops-1 to 4.
3. The OP-4 financed vehicle Tata 407 LPT on 22.08.05 at the interest rate of 5% per annum for 2 years. The complainant filed case in the District Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.2,000/- per day w.e.f. 11.10.07 onwards for causing harassment and mental agony. He also sought interest and litigation expenses.
4. OPs-1 to 4 filed a WS stating that complainant  was not a consumer as he got commercial vehicle financed, he has been earning profit from the said vehicle. They also pleaded that vehicle was financed and purchased in Bareilly and OP was having only an office in Delhi, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Clause 35 of loan cum hypothecation agreement recited that Consumer Forum at Mumbai had jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Complainant had not disclosed as to when he paid the installments with OP. According  to OPs the complainant had earlier file a case on 20.02.12 before District Consumer Forum, Tis Hazari and complainant concealed the said fact. According to them Rs.66,116/- including delay payment charges was due from the complainant out of which he deposited  Rs.36,000/- leaving balance payment of Rs.33,108/-.
5. The complainant obtained financed amount of Rs.3,80,000/- on 22.08.05, Rs.38,000/- was finance charges, the amount was repayable in 23 EMIs. First instalment was of Rs.18,800/- and remaining instalments were of Rs.18,600/- which were to be deposited from 22.08.05 to 21.06.07. The complainant deposited Rs.4,02,834/-. OPs adjusted Rs.3,94,892/- toward instalment and Rs.7,942/- towards charges as per agreement.. According to the Ops Rs.33,108/- was in arrear towards instalment and Rs.93,327.11 was in arrears towards delayed payment charges. The dispute was referred to arbitration of Shri P.C.  Phalgunan and the arbitrator passed the award dated 16.02.13. The complaint is not maintainable being of summary nature, the case involved verification of statement of account, agreement details of payment and their adjustment.
6. OP-5 did not file WS but sent a reply stating that cheque for Rs.36,000/- favouring Tata Motors was prepared by the complainant. Inadvertently the name on cheque in the statement of account of complainant has been mentioned as Tankam Motors.
7. Both the parties filed evidence by affidavit. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments the District Forum observed that complainant had not disputed the fact that he had earlier filed a case on same cause of action before District Forum, Tis Hazari. The appellant strongly protested against the said observations on the ground that that he had never stated in the complaint, as tried to be made out by the OP, that complainant himself has mentioned in the complaint that earlier he filed a case on the same cause of action in Consumer Forum, Tis Hazari.
8. I have perused the copy of complaint at page-18 of the appeal file. There is no mention therein about the filing of the previous case. Thus to that extent the appellant seems to be correct.
9. The District Forum further found that appellant has not placed copies of receipts regarding payment made to Ops towards monthly instalment of loan, had failed to file complete statement of bank account to show on which date the loan was disbursed and on which date the monthly installments were debited in his bank account.  Thus the District Forum concluded that complainant had failed to prove his case and dismissed the complaint.
10. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments for the purpose of admission. It is not necessary to enter into controversy on facts. Once matter has been referred to arbitration and arbitrator has given award, they cannot be canvassed in any proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, In Damyanti KantiLal Shah vs. RashmiGrehNirman I (2016) CPJ 235 NC held that after Civil Suit, no consumer complaint lies.
11. In Installment Supply Ltd. Vs. Kangra Ex-Servicemen Transport I (2007) CPJ 34 NC held that there can be no consumer complaint after award of arbitration.
12. The appeal has no merits and is dismissed in limine.
13. Copy of the order be sent to all the parties free of cost.
14. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
15. File be consigned to record room.

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)