Learned counsel for the parties are present.

Heard on the question of maintainability of the complaint raised by the OPs Financer.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint is not maintainable on two grounds. Firstly, the complainant having purchased as many as five vehicles after availing loan from the OPs representing Tata Motors Fiancé Limited, the complaint does not fall within the ambit and definition of consumer dispute. The complainant purchased the vehicle to be used for transportation business which is a commercial purpose. The second contention of the learned counsel for the OPs is that prior to filing of the complaint in the month of March, 2019, an arbitral award has been passed on 26.4.2018, the copy of which is Annexure – D to the petition filed by the OPs, in respect of dispute arising out of agreement between the parties. It is well settled that a consumer complaint is not maintainable between the parties after passing of the arbitral award. In this connection learned counsel for the OPs places the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in The Installment Supply Ltd vrs. Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport Co. & Another reported in 2006 (3) CPR 339 (NC).

In reply, learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of purchase of as many as five vehicles by the complainant upon availing loan from the OPs. However, it is contended that the purpose for purchase of the vehicles is not commercial purpose but for self-employment. This contention does not hold good in view of the fact that one person cannot be driver of as many as five vehicles.

As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the OPs in RP No. 2909 of 2010 decided on 20.1.2011 (Jogendra Singh vrs. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited), placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vrs. PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that an owner of 4 trucks cannot qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act as he clearly intends to run a transportation business and such endeavour is not in line with ‘self-employment’ as the phrase under Section 2(d) Explanation of the Act of 1986 is intended to be meant/construed.

Also in the decision of The Installment Supply Ltd (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that a complaint is not maintainable after passing of the arbitral award between the parties.

In the above view of the matter, the complaint is vexatious and not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed.