Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/33/2017

Uttam Kumar Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- B.M. SREI Equipment finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.K.Dora & A. Purohit

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 33/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Uttam Kumar Padhi,

S/O- Nityananda Padhi,

R/O-Bishadihi, Ghichamura,

PS-Katarbaga, Dist-Sambalpur .                          ………..…..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager,

SREI Equipment Finance Limited,

Sagar Junction, Ainthapali, Po/Ps-Ainthapali,

•  

2. The Managing Director

SREI Equipment Finance Limited,

Head Office-Plot No.Y-10, Block EP, Sector-V

Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091(W.B.).. ………..Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. P.K.Dora Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :-         Sri. A.K.Samal, Advocate & Associates

 

DATE OF HEARING : XXXXX, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 22.08.2022

           Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant availed finance facility from the O.Ps, entered into a hire-purchase agreement for HYWA Vehicle (Tata make) bearing Regd. No. OD-15C-5905. The agreement was made on 30.09.2014. The Complainant deposited Rs. 3,50,000/- down payment. Finance was made Rs. 16.00lakhs and the First installment started on 22.11.2014 @Rs. 74,100/- per month, total 39 installments. The Complainant paid 24 installments total Rs. 17,78,400/- to the O.P. No.1.

Due to heart problem, its treatment and loss of business, the Complainant could not pay the installments from July 2016 to Dec. 2016. The O.Ps took the repossession of the vehicle on 23.01.2017 from the site of Bhusan Steel & Power Ltd. Thelkoli and forced him to surrender and sign some documents, took away all original documents of the vehicle which is an unfair trade practice. At the time of repossession, the Complainant wanted to pay the unpaid installments but the O.P. No.1 did not receive. The Complainant thereafter made several request to release the vehicle on payment of over due installments but the O.P. No.1 asked to pay the full and final amount. The agreement has not been supplied to the Complainant, for which the Complainant unable to ascertain the condition of agreement.

2. The O.Ps after appearance filed their version and stated that as arbitration clause 9.11 exists between the parties the complaint is not maintainable. The Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. and submitted the registration certificates of the vehicles which are given below:

1. OD-15A      1952
2. OR-23C      4658
3. OR-15A      2604
4. OR-23A      7505
5. OR-23C      4660
6. OD-15B      5660
7. OD-15B      0605
8. OR-23C      4659

The Complainant is the owner of the vehicles cited above and running commercial activities/transport business. For expansion of business the Complainant has availed the loan, he can not be treated as ‘Consumer’ as per the C.P. Act. The O.P. has followed due procedure for repossession of the vehicle.

          The Complainant obtained ex-parte interim order dated 22.04.2017 making false and fabricated statements. The O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

3. After perusal of the documents filed by the parties and their pleadings the following issues are framed:

 

103606587.  

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P?
2. Is there any deficiency in service of the O.Ps?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P?

A consumer buys any goods or hires or avails any service for a consideration but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial use. In the present case the Complainant is having a transport business and plying a number of vehicles in his name, which clearly establishes that the Complainant cannot be termed as ‘Consumer’ as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The issue is answered against the Complainant.\

Issue No.2 Is there any deficiency in service of the O.Ps?

          As the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.Ps, deficiency in service does not arise.

          Issue is answered against the Complainant.

Issue No.3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

          As the dispute is purely a dispute of civil nature and consumer relationship does not exist between the parties, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief. The Complainant has obtained the interim order suppressing the material facts before the Forum/Commission. Further preferred revision Petition before the Hon’ble State Commission, Orissa Cuttack bearing No. R.P. No. 79/2017. The Complainant has not come to the Commission/Forum in clean hands.

          Accordingly, it is ordered:

 

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed on contest. No cost.

          Order pronounced on this 22^nd day of August 2022.

          Supply free copies to the parties.