P. SUNDARAMOORTHY Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed as against the order dated 12.02.2013 in Ar.O.P. No. 13 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, dismissing the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award of the 2nd respondent dated 13.08.2008.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case of the appellants, in nutshell, are as follows: - The appellants herein had purchased a Ashok Leyland goods carrier vehicle bearing Registration No. K.A.19 -B -0118 (2002 model) from M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein, under hire purchase agreement. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 9,36,670/ -. Out of the total cost of Rs. 9,36,670/ -, an initial payment of Rs. 1,50,000/ - was paid and the balance amount was to be paid in 47 instalments and the said vehicle was hypothecated with the 1st respondent and each instalment would comprise a sum of Rs. 19,940/ -. While so, the 1st respondent, by taking advantage of the hypothecation, had taken the possession of the vehicle on 13.03.2006 without due notice to the appellants and thereafter, the 1st respondent sold the vehicle to some other person. It is the case of the appellants that the 1st respondent has deliberately sold the vehicle, even without issuing any prior notice to the appellants or giving any opportunity to make good the payment; further, the 1st respondent is duty bound to handover the said vehicle, which has been seized illegally and forcefully without the consent and concurrence of the appellants herein; the vehicle in question has been sold for a very low price, though the cost of the vehicle would fetch more than Rs. 7 lakhs being an high hand model. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed a claim petition by appointing a sole Arbitrator according to their own convenience and the Arbitrator had acted unilaterally without even going through the question of law and facts, and passed an award dated 02.09.2008 against the appellants herein. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants have filed Ar.O.P. No. 13 of 2012 before the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur. But, the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, by order dated 12.02.2013. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants for the relief as stated supra.

(3.) IT is the reply of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is incorrect to state that the appellants have not participated in the arbitration proceedings. In fact, the appellants have received notice and their advocate filed vakalat on 14.06.2008 and as such, they made a representation through their advocate. Moreover, the appellants have not objected for the appointment of the 2nd respondent as sole Arbitrator. Thus, the appellants participated in the entire arbitration proceedings.