Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member

This Second Appeal(SA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 51(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 02.06.2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in Appeal No. 126/2024 in which order dated 17.11.2023 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Motihari (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 69/2021 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Appellant herein was also the Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission and the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) were also the respondent before the State Commission in First Appeal no. 126/2024 and Complainant before the District Commission in CC/69/2021. For the sake of convenience parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the district Commission. SA has been filed with a delay of 24 days as per calculation made by the registry, Delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated in IA no. 10868 of 2025, seeking condonation of delay and the case is taken up on merits.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 25.09.2025. In response to the notice on memorandum of appeal, None appeared for the respondents despite service; Accordingly respondent is proceeded ex-parte on merits as per order dated 27.11.2025. Respondent has filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 13.01.2026 same will be taken into account while deciding the case .

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the complainant and as emerged from the Second Appeal, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

                   4.1 The Complainant availed a loan in the sum of Rs.3, 00,000/- under Loan Agreement No. 5002503835 from Opposite Party No.3 (Branch office of Appellant Company herein) on 31.12.2017 for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle from Tata Motors, Motihari. A further sum of Rs.34,000/- was collected by the Opposite Parties for insuring the said vehicle for a two-year period, with an additional amount of Rs. 971.43/- being levied, yet the insurance coverage was furnished for only 35 months. It is further averred that, up to 17.06.2021, a total of 24 instalments aggregating to Rs. 2,71,328/- were credited to the loan account. The Complainant subsequently defaulted on the next instalment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but despite governmental directives, interest was unlawfully charged on his account. Additionally, the Complainant incurred an expense of Rs. 42,000/- for vehicle repairs, which sum was not indemnified by the Insurance Company.

                   4.2 The Complainant alleges that on 05.06.2021, vehicle bearing registration No. BR-05Y-9475 was seized by the Opposite Parties, who claimed an outstanding due of Rs. 1,90,988/- as per their communication dated 06.07.2021, Vide the said communication dated 06.07.2021, the Complainant was also notified of an arbitral award. A legal notice was thereafter issued by the Complainant.

                   4.3 The Complainant claimed deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, resulting in a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, and a further loss of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of social respect and reputation, for which compensation is sought.

                   4.4 The Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed their written statement, denying the material allegations. Their defence, in brief, admits the disbursement of the loan but contends that the Complainant is a chronic defaulter. They plead the existence of a binding arbitration agreement and assert that the present complaint is not maintainable, having been filed with material suppression of facts.

                   4.5 It is their further case that the learned sole Arbitrator passed an interim order dated 29.01.2021, directing the Complainant to hand over possession of the vehicle, failing which the Opposite Parties were entitled to repossess. The said arbitral award was made absolute on 19.03.2021, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,90,988.37/- along with interest @18% p.a. was adjudged payable.

                   4.6 The Opposite Parties state that the vehicle in question was lawfully repossessed on 29.06.2021, and a pre-sale notice dated 06.07.2021 was duly served upon the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties, a total sum of Rs.2,42,448/- remains outstanding against the Complainant as on 07.02.2022, and they deny any deficiency in service on their part.

5. The District Forum vide Order dated 17.11.2023, in the CC no. 69/2021, while dismissing the complaint passed the following order:

                   .......In the light of the opinion given in the above decision points, the Commission finds that the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle released on depositing Rs. 1,30,552 with the opposite parties and to get Rs. 50,000 for mental and physical suffering, Rs. 25,000 as litigation expenses from the opposite party. Consequently, the opposite party is ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 for mental and physical suffering, Rs. 25,000 as litigation expenses to the complainant within 3 months and release his vehicle on depositing Rs. 1,30,552 by the complainant. Otherwise, 9 percent annual interest will be payable on the compensation amount.

6. Aggrieved by the Order dated 17.11.2023 of District Forum, Appellant herein appealed before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 02.06.2025 in Appeal no. 126/2024 dismissed the appeal and passed the following order:

                   10. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 it appears that it is well discussed and all the points raised by the appellants have been answered therein. A consumer can approach a consumer Commission even if agreement provides Arbitration. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

7. Appellant herein has challenged the said Order dated 02.06.2025 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

                   (i) The District Commission failed to appreciate that the calculations contained within its order are erroneous and materially incorrect.

                   (ii) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that a dispute relating to the reconciliation of accounts does not constitute a "consumer dispute" as defined under Section 2(1)(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                   (iii) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the appellants provided sufficient opportunity and issued all requisite notices to the respondent complainant, who deliberately chose not to respond.

                   (iv) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent complainant deliberately omitted to implead the insurance company, which was a necessary party.

                   (v) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that no prior notice was required for the repossession of the vehicle.

                   (vi) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the present consumer complaint is barred by the principle of 'res judicata', as the same subject matter of dispute has already been adjudicated and concluded in the arbitration proceedings.

                   (vii) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the filing of a consumer case is not legally maintainable after a final arbitral award has been passed on the same cause of action.

                   (viii) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that the impugned order effectively amounts to the setting aside of a valid arbitral award, which is impermissible in law, creates judicial disharmony, and represents an overreach whereby the Forum has assumed the jurisdiction of a civil court, thereby exceeding the statutory limits prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

                   (ix) The District Commission has failed to appreciate that its impugned order effectively rewrites the mutually agreed contractual terms between the parties, an action which is impermissible under the law.

8. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants. The main contention of the Appellant herein is that consumer complaint before the consumer fora is barred by res-judicata as Arbitrator has already passed the Award. The Appellant has relied upon following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court /this Commission.

                   (i) Navneet Jha vs. Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd. - SLP No. 13778 of 2021

                   (ii) Balmukand Joshi vs. Suresh Rathi Securities Pvt. Ltd. - RP No. 1178 of 2021

It is to be noted that in the present case it is the OP (The Appellant herein) who initiated the arbitration proceedings and not the complainant.

9. Section 51(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, envisage a Second Appeal to this Commission, if it involves substantial questions of law Under Section 51 (3) such substantial question of law need to be listed in the memorandum of appeal. Under Section 51(4), this Commission is to formulate the substantial question of law and hear appeal on this question. In this memorandum of appeal, following substantial questions of law have been listed:

Substantial Question of Law-

                   A. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission rightly concluded that the points raised by the Appellants were answered therein and needs no interference?

                   B. Whether the District Commission rightly concluded that the award of the Arbitrator is not binding on the respondent complainant?

                   C. Whether the District Commission rightly concluded that the Appellants have not repossessed the vehicle according to the loan agreement?

                   D. Whether the District Commission rightly concluded that the Appellants have done deficiency in services?

                   E. Whether the District Commission rightly concluded that the complaint is maintainable?

After careful perusal of facts of the case and pleadings, we are of the considered view that the main substantial question of law that arises for our determination is, does a pre-existing arbitral award bar a consumer from initiating proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, and whether such proceedings are hit by principles governing res-judicata?

10. The Respondent (complainant) in his reply/written Arguments/Synopsis filed on 13/01/25 has submitted as follows and prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.

                   10.1 The Respondent (Complainant) purchased a Tata Tiago in 31/12/2017 through a loan from Tata Motor Finance Ltd. and paid 24 installments totaling Rs.2,71,328. However, due to health complications and financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic, he defaulted on subsequent EMIs. On June 5, 2021, the Appellant seized the vehicle without prior notice or legal information. Despite a legal notice being sent by the Respondent, the Appellant failed to respond and allegedly pressured the Respondent through their staff, threatening to sell the vehicle. This led the Respondent to file a consumer complaint (No. 69/2021) before the District Commission, which subsequently ruled in his favor through order dated 17/11/2023.

                   10.2 In compliance with the District Commission's order, the Respondent (Complainant) has already deposited ?l,30,552 in court. Despite this payment, the Appellant has neither returned the vehicle nor complied with the lower court's directions, instead filing this appeal to further harass the Respondent. The Respondent contends that he has suffered significant mental and physical harassment due to the Appellant's actions. Consequently, it is argued that the current appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed by the Hon'ble State Commission, maintaining the relief granted by the District Commission.

11. We have carefully considered the orders of the State Commission, District Commission other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties in the light of statutory provisions and various judgments of this Commission and Hon'ble Supreme Court, including the ones relied upon by the appellant herein. It is to be noted that in Balmukand Joshi (Supra), It was the Petitioner (Complainant) himself who had filed application for referring the matter to the arbitration, while in the present case, it is the OP (Appellant Herein) who initiated the arbitration proceedings and not the complainant. In Navneet Jha (Supra) it is not clear as to which party initiated the process of arbitration, the judgment recorded, the matter was apparently referred to arbitration.

12. Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states that the Act is not in derogation of any other law and the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs Anil Patni and Anr. (2020)10 SCC 783 "remedies available under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies over and above other remedies, including those made available under any special statutes - availability of alternate remedy is no bar to entertaining complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd Vs Abhisekh Khanna and Ors. (2021) 3 SCC 241 "When two remedies are available for the same relief, party to whom such remedies are available has the option to elect either of them, but that doctrine would not apply in the cases where the ambit and scope of the two remedies is essentially different" .........."The remedies under Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. In Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs Aftab Singh (2019) 1 CPJ 5(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Arbitration Clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora". In Infrastructure Limited v. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (2023) SCC Online NCDRC 595, this Commission observed that:

                   "7 .......Intentional exercise of a choice between the alternatives bars the persons making the choice from the benefit of the one not selected on the principle of 'estoppel by election'. The doctrine of 'estoppel by election' has been dealt with in Haisbury's Law of England as 'estoppel by record' and 'estoppel in pais' as a party, cannot, after taking advantage under an order be heard to say that it is invalid and ask to set it aside. The doctrine of 'estoppel by election' in matter of remedies has been recognized where there are two or more concurrent remedies are available to the litigant at the time of election of remedy, in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Gar ReRolling Mills, (1994) 2 SCC 647, Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241 (paragraph-37.5) and Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar, (2022) 6 SCC 496 (paragraph-25), holding that an allottee may elect or opt for one out of the remedies provided by law for redressal of its injury or grievance. An election of remedy arises when two concurrent remedies are available and the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one, in which event he loses his right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action."

13. In P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatt, 1998 (6) SCC 16, it was held that:

                   8. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel - the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel) which is a rule in equity. By that rule, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. "

14. In the present case, it is the OP (Appellant herein), who opted for the arbitral proceedings and not the Complainant, hence, we are of the considered view that as the Complainant himself has not elected to go for Arbitral Proceedings, the arbitral award in pursuance to the arbitral proceedings opted by the OP shall not bar the Complainant from initiating proceedings before the Consumer Commission. Hence, the final arbitral award in the present case will not act as res-judicata and estoppel the complainant from approaching the District Commission/State Commission for redressal of his grievances with respect to deficiency of service on the part of the OP under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Both the Fora below have given concurrent findings on this issue.

15. Hence, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the Complainant is well within his rights to seek redressal before the District Commission and the selection of the Forum was well within his jurisdiction. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere to the order passed by the State Commission. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State Commission. Hence, the order is upheld and the Second Appeal 586 of 2025 is dismissed.

16. All the pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.