Appeal No. F/12/441. Case: Navneet Jha Vs Magma Shrachi Finance Limited. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberAppeal No. F/12/441
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Puri, Advocate
JudgesR.S. Sharma, J. (President) and Heena Thakkar, Member
IssueArbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34, 8; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 9; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 3
Judgement DateJanuary 20, 2014
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

R.S. Sharma, J. (President)

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.7.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham/Kawardha (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 04/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the O.P./respondent as cost of litigation and Advocate fees from the complainant/appellant. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are as under:

That the complainant/appellant is owner of a vehicle Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX bearing registration No. C.G.04-J.A.-3730. The complainant/appellant purchased the said vehicle with the help of financial assistance by obtaining loan from the O.P./respondent to the tune of Rs. 11,25,000 and the instalments of the loan were to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments. The agreement was effective from 20.7.2007 to 20.2.2012. The first two instalments were of Rs. 10,000 each and rest 54 were of Rs. 28,350. The complainant/appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 14,13,120 with the O.P./Insurance Company till November, 2011, but the O.P./respondent forcibly took possession of the vehicle on 4.12.2011 and thus O.P./respondent committed robbery. At the time of repossession of the vehicle by the O.P./respondent the value of the vehicle was Rs. 11,00,000 and the complainant/appellant had already deposited near about Rs. 14,13,120 with the O.P./respondent till 20th November, 2011 and the O.P./respondent was entitled for Rs. 14,65,850 only, therefore, only a sum of Rs. 52,730 was due against the complainant/appellant and the complainant/appellant was ready to pay the said amount, but in spite of receiving amount of instalments, the O.P./respondent looted the vehicle illegally. The complainant/appellant sent written report with Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) on 14.12.2011 and sent legal notice to the O.P./respondent, but O.P./respondent did not respond the legal notice and illegally sold the vehicle, therefore, the complainant/appellant filed complaint before the District Forum.

2. O.P./respondent filed his written version before the District Forum and denied the allegations levelled by the complainant/appellant in the complaint and averred that the O.P./respondent is a financer and according to Hire Purchase Agreement the financer/O.P. has become owner of the vehicle and purchaser is simply a bailee "(Hindi matter omitted)" of the vehicle. The O.P./respondent sent notice to the complainant/appellant before referring the matter to the Arbitrator and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator and award was passed on 16.7.2011 by the Arbitrator. Copy of the award has also been sent to the complainant/appellant by registered post.

3. After receiving copy of the award, the complainant/appellant did not comply the award passed by the Arbitrator and the complainant/appellant filed complaint before the District Forum after passing the award by the Arbitrator, therefore, the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to decide the case.

4. Learned District Forum, after, appreciation of the materials available before it, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the O.P./respondent as cost of litigation and Advocate fees from the complainant/appellant.

5. Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the appellant/complainant had already deposited near about Rs. 14,13,120 with the O.P./respondent till 20th November, 2011 and the appellant/complainant was ready to pay the balance amount but the respondent/O.P. forcibly took the possession of the vehicle with the help of muscleman and illegally sold the vehicle. Before auction or sale of the vehicle, the respondent/O.P. did not send notice to the appellant/complainant and thus respondent/O.P. violated the provisions of the Hire Purchase Agreement and recovery process was effected by the O.P./respondent with use of force which is not in accordance with law. Even no notice was served upon the appellant/complainant before referring the matter to the Arbitrator...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT