CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LTD Vs. KISHORE JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 for purchase of a car, for which finance charges were worked out for Rs. 26,000, hence in this way, the total amount payable by the complainant to the petitioner was Rs. 2,26,000 for which post-dated cheques were issued showing payment of Rs. 12,242 of each instalment. It is admitted position that the cheque dated 5. 7. 2000 issued by the respondent was dishonoured for which a Demand Draft (DD) was made and given to the petitioner which they could not encash as it appears that this DD was misplaced by the petitioner. Again there was question of non-payment of instalments on 5. 6. 2001 and 5. 7. 2001 amounting to Rs. 14,382. As per the respondents they repossessed the vehicle in terms of the 'hire-purchase agreement', as amount of Rs. 48,350 was outstanding against the respondent/complainant. It is also on record that after the complainant had paid Rs. 48,730 the vehicle was released in favour of the respondent/complainant but the complainant was not satisfied. According to him the petitioner was not entitled to Rs. 48,730 and when the matter was not getting settled between the parties, a complaint was filed before the District Forum who after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint as repossession and subsequent settlement of the matter on payment of Rs. 48,730 by the respondent to the petitioner was found to be in order. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by the respondent which was allowed and petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 48,730 along with compensation of Rs. 20,000 within a period of 2 months, failing which it was to carry interest @ 9% p. a. along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order this revision petition has been filed before us.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. The first plea taken by the petitioner is that in view of the provision for 'arbitration in the hire-purchase agreement', this Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. It is made clear that in view of the settled position of law, that Section 3 of the CPA, 1986 clearly stipulates that this is an 'additional remedy' hence this is consistently held by this Commission that it is for the party to decide as to which option to exercise? The reliance of the learned Counsel of the petitioner on the order of this Commission in the case of Arihant Converters v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , II (1991) CPJ 246 (NC), is misplaced for the simple reason that in this case both the parties agreed for arbitration, which is not the case before us. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh and Anr. , II (2007) CPJ 45 (SC)=ii (2006) BC 108 (SC)=ii (2006) SLT 166=127 (2006) DLT 278 (SC), Appeal (Civil) No. 1070 of 2006" again does not help the petitioner, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not ousted the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora for the simple reason as that was not the issue before them.