Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/185/2018

Amarpreet Singh Luna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/185/2018
Date of Institution	:	25/04/2018
Date of Decision	:	15/01/2020

 

 

Amarpreet Singh Luna s/o Sh. MS Luna r/o Kothi No.521, Phase-1, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Tata Motors Ltd., SCO 1, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.
2. Tata Motors Finance through its Zonal Manager, Kharbesh Batra, SCO 11, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	None for OP-1
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP-2

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Allegations in brief are, complainant in the year 2006 had purchased a TATA Indica car and got it financed on raising loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs from the OPs. The loan amount was repayable in five years. The complainant had issued post dated cheques in advance which were duly encashsed by the OPs. Entire amount repaid.  His case is, earlier in a consumer dispute the amount of Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,100/- as cost of litigation was awarded. However, subsequent thereto, OPs sent notices dated 7.6.2009, 20.6.2009, 28.8.2009, 25.10.2009, 31.10.2009 and 25.11.2009 demanding different amounts without any rhyme or reason. Again a consumer complaint was filed and Rs.1.00 lakhs was awarded alongwith Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. However, no objection certificate was not issued. Two more notices were issued on 12.10.2012 claiming the amount of Rs.20,542/- on the basis of award dated 3.12.2012 passed by the Arbitrator. Hence, alleged the action of the OPs tantamounts to unfair trade practice and claimed direction against the OPs to issue clearance/no objection certificate alongwith compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs and cost of litigation. 
2.     OPs appeared through counsel, however, on 5.3.2019 no reply was intended to be filed on behalf of OP-1 as per endorsement put on the foot of the order dated 22.2.2019. 
3.     OP-2 contested the consumer complaint and filed its reply. Averred, the consumer complaint is vexatious and has been filed with regard to the award passed by the Arbitrator in the year 2012 and, therefore, this consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is also the case, earlier orders passed by the Consumer Forum were agitated in appeal and were set aside, however, the copies thereof were not filed. Hence, claimed the present consumer complaint is barred under the principle of res judicata. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for OP-2 and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Perusal of the record shows, complainant availed many chances to file rejoinder, however, no rejoinder was filed despite sufficient opportunities afforded to him. Meaning thereby, there is no rebuttal to the allegations and the grounds of defence put forth in the written reply qua setting aside of the orders of the Forum, though the copies of said orders had not been produced on record.  
7.     Perusal of the record shows, complainant instead of filing rejoinder or rebuttal evidence, started absenting himself and stopped participating in the proceedings of the present consumer complaint.  While the consumer complaint was posted for rejoinder or rebuttal, the complainant had not appeared on 30.7.2019, 18.9.2019, 5.11.2019 and 8.1.2020. There are repeated non appearances.  Rather the complainant had run away from the arena to rebut the allegations contained in the written reply furnished on behalf of the OPs.  Thus, to some extent, authenticity could be attached to the averments made in the written reply.
8.     A perusal of paragraph No.8 of the present consumer complaint shows some award of Rs.20,542/- was passed in favour of the OPs and against the complainant.  The copy of the award (Annexure C-5) shows a sum of Rs.20,542.01 alongwith interest was awarded in favour of the OPs and against the complainant and award was announced on 3.12.2012.  The said award has not been challenged before the concerned Principal Judge and has attained finality.  Now the complainant has made attempt to dislodge the award, which has attained finality, by way of filing the present consumer complaint. The two institutions i.e. to say of award of the arbitrator and that of this Forum cannot be in conflict with each other so as to create indiscipline in the rule of law. Thus, since the award has attained finality, therefore, this Forum cannot sit as a court of appeal against the award passed by the Arbitrator, but, it was to be challenged by way of appropriate remedy of filing objections before Principal District Judge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9.     Repeatedly the complainant asserted many orders with regard to the same dispute were passed in his favour by the District Forum and he had not made reference of any appeal having been preferred against those orders. Under these orders, hefty amount of compensation was awarded in his favour. If this is the situation, complainant had the remedies to get the same executed against the OPs, but, it has not been explained why these orders, which were allegedly in force, were not got executed by him to settle his claim in totality.  This shows something had been concealed by the complainant in the present consumer complaint.
10.     A perusal of the pleadings as well as the record shows, the matter was already agitated in a long drawn battle before the District Forum and such pleas could have been raised qua issuance of no objection certificate against the OPs.  Therefore, since there is a previous order, as such, the present consumer complaint is barred under the principle of res judicata as the matter had already been finally decided between the parties to the lis. 
11.     In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present consumer complaint and proceed to dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/01/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President