: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.573 OF 2010 Vasantha Kumari V. .. Petitioner v/s. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. .. Respondents ......... Mr. O.A. Das for the petitioner None for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. : 1. Learned Arbitrator has passed an award dated 1st October, 2009 directing the petitioner to pay the amount more particularly set out in the said award. This award is sought to be challenged by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Das on all counts. The petitioner remained absent before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator had : 2 : no choice but to proceed with the arbitration. 3. It was also argued that the conducting of arbitration in Mumbai when the petitioner is resident of Kerla amounts to harassment. This argument cannot be accepted. The Court cannot consider the effect of conducting of agreement in Mumbai and as to whether it had caused harassment to a particular party. 4. My attention was drawn to paragraph 5 wherein it is mentioned that the vehicle was repossessed and was sold and credit has been given to the amount and thereafter the liability is arrived at. According to learned advocate Mr. Das, the petitioner had surrendered the vehicle to the respondent as and by way of full and final settlement of the claim. This will mean that the petitioner had admitted that the respondent is entitled to receive a particular amount. There is no specific document placed before the Court so as to show to the Court that bilateral agreement was entered into to say that the Car was received by respondents towards the full and final settlement of the respondents’ claim against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondents have advanced monies to the petitioner to purchase a Car, it is just unconceivable that respondents will receive a Car in lieu of the loan liability. In the absence of : 3 : any material before the Court that the Car was returned to the respondents towards full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioners such an argument cannot be accepted. The word repossessed found in the arbitration award clearly indicates that the respondents must have taken action in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, taken charge of the car and must have dealt with the Car in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The said conduct of the respondents cannot now be questioned. The learned arbitrator has recorded that the sum of Rs. 1,07,799.52 was found to be payable. Certainly, the arbitrator has taken care of giving credit to the petitioner about the sale proceeds. According to learned advocate Mr. Das, the learned arbitrator does not mention as to how the Car was sold, whether by way of public auction or by private treaty. He makes a grievance that what amount was received by the respondents by selling the Car is not mentioned. That appears to be an omission on the part of the arbitrator in drafting the award but that does not mean that the respondents have not given credit to the petitioner as regards the sale proceeds. 5. The petitioner remained absent before the learned arbitrator. Various points could have been raised by the petitioner before the petitioner. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity hence the petitioner cannot get : 4 : that chance before this Court in the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the said Act. It was sought to be suggested that the petitioner was sick and that is how she could not go to the venue of arbitration. It was easily possible for the petitioner to engage a lawyer and see that she is properly represented. 6. Looking to the present petition from all angles, I am inclined to observe that no case for interference is made out and the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Needless to mention that if the petitioner wants to settle the claim granted in the award, she is free to contact the respondents for doing that. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Petition is rejected at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. (ii) In view of the disposal of the petition, Notice of Motion No.850 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]