Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/16/32

TATA MOTORS FIN.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJENDRA GIRI - Opp.Party(s)

SH. J.S. PARMAR

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 32 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 05.04.2016 passed in C.C.No.164/2015 by District Forum, Chhindwara)

 

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED & ORS.                                                         …          PETITIONERS

 

Versus

                  

VIJENDRA GIRI GOSWAMI & ORS.                                                                       …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI P. K. PARASHAR                               :      MEMBER                        

 

                                      O R D E R

17.09.2019

          Shri J. S. Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            None for the respondent.                       

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This revision petition is directed against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhindwara (for short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.164/2015 on an application for grant of interim relief filed by the respondents/complainants.

2.                Briefly stated, on account of non-payment of instalments of loan payable to the petitioners, the respondents had approached the Arbitrator invoking the arbitration clause between the parties. The Arbitrator vide interim order dated 17.10.2015 permitted the petitioners to take possession of the vehicle in question.  In terms of the order passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioners got the possession of the vehicle from the complainant.  Aggrieved by taking of the possession of vehicle, the complainant/respondent had filed an application in a pending consumer complaint for taking back possession of the vehicle from the petitioner. The said application is allowed by the Forum by the impugned order.

3.                Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the interim order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner had got possession of the vehicle from the complainant.  If the complainants were aggrieved by the said order, they ought to have challenged the same by way of appropriate proceedings. He also submits that during pendency of the matter before the

-2-

Commission, the Arbitrator has finally passed the award which is required to be challenged by the respondents/complainants by way of appropriate proceedings. Be that as it may.  All these aspects are required to be considered by the Forum.

4.                We are of the view that after passing of the interim order by the Arbitrator, the petitioners got possession of the vehicle and the same is still in the possession of petitioners.  In the circumstances, we dispose of the revision by directing the parties to maintain status quo so far it relates to possession of the vehicle till the final disposal of the complaint by the Forum.

5.                We direct the Forum to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by this order and the observations made hereinabove.

6.                Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 21.10.2019.

 

    (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)     (S. S. Bansal)     (P. K. Parashar)         

                President                             Member                 Member

 

 

                President                             Member                 Member