MR. BIJOY KUMAR DAS, PRESIDENT:-

                        Non-delivery of documents of complainant’s purchased vehicle  are the allegations arrayed against Ops.

2.                     It is the case of the complainant that he purchased an Atul Auto from OP No.3,authorized dealer on dtd.01.05.2018. Complainant paid Rs.65,000/- towards down payment against the cost of the vehicle Rs.2,30,000/-, the remaining balance amount was financed by OP No.1 & 2 finance company to the tune of Rs.1,83,000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that, he has paid required fees of Registration/Insurance  to the Ops, but the Ops are not handing over the documents to the complainant for which complainant is facing a lot of trouble to ply the vehicle in the road. It is further case of the complainant due to non-plying of Auto, it is difficult on his part to maintain his family. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dtd.01.05.2018 and on dtd.05.02.2019 when the Ops refused to hand over the papers of the vehicle.

3.                   OP No.1 & 2 Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. On receipt of Notice appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. R.K.Sahoo and filed joint written version to the dispute. In the written version OP No.1 & 2 challenge the maintainability of the complainant on different grounds by citing a decision of Apex Court and National Commission. In the facts of the dispute, OP No.1 & 2averred that on the loan application of the complainant and after execution of an agreement OP-Finance Company financed an amount of Rs.2,07,076/- and as per the agreement the loan has to be repaid by making Rs.6,500/- in 47 installments starting from dtd.25.06.2018 to dtd.25.04.202, but complainant failed to pay the EMI’s in time for which an overdue charges of Rs.26,938/- is accrued on the complainant-loanee. It is also the case of the OP No.1 & 2 that the allegation of non-handing over of documents this Ops are not responsible for the allegations and OP No.3 is not the agent of the OP-Finance as alleged by the complainant. In the circumstances complainant to avoid payment has foisted this false complaint and Ops have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

                           Though OP No.3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel but did not file any written version, accordingly set ex-parte by this Forum’s Order No.12 dtd.19.08.19.

4.                     Heard the Learned Counsel appears for OP No.1 & 2 and case of the complainant on merit as the complainant during course of hearing remain absent and ex-parte hearing against OP No.3, perused the documents filed into the dispute. The facts of the case are that complainant purchased an Atul Auto from OP No.3 dealer being financed by OP-finance company. In this present complaint OP No.1 & 2 are the Branch In-charge Cholomandalam Investment Pvt. Ltd. And OP No.3 is authorized dealer to sale the case vehicle. In the dispute OP-Finance Company raised the question of maintainability main on two grounds as complainant is excluded from the purview of definition of ‘consumer’ and the clause of Arbitration mentioned in the agreement by citing different decisions. In this regard we are of the opinion that when the complainant-loanee purchased an Passenger  carrying Auto, it can not be treated as the complainant was using the vehicle for any commercial purpose rather purchase of a passenger auto by availing a finance clarifies that complainant to earn his livelihood has purchased the same, complainant be treated as a consumer within the definition of c.P.Act,1986. On the point of Arbitration, we are of the opinion that Sec.3 of the C.P.Act,1986 entitles the complainant to seek redressal before the Consumer Forum. Hence, the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Complainant alleges non-handing over documents by the Ops inspite of payment of fees for which complainant was not able to run the vehicle and sustain financial loss and face difficulties to maintain his family. Complainant apart from the allegations does not produce a single document to show that fees were paid to the Ops for registration and insurance. The complainant also lacks the clarity in respect of payment of fees to which of the Ops, either it is to OP-financer or OP-dealer. When the OP-financer challenged the payment of fees by averring that, OP No.1 & 2 are no way connected to receive the fees of registration and insurance as alleged by the complainant. It is also a fact that, OP No.3-dealer is not the agent of the OP-financer so far the providing of ‘service’ is concerned, production of certain money receipts of OP No.3-dealer granted in favour of the complainant-borrower does not substantiate that the grievance of the complainant regarding non-handing over of documents liable the Ops in any way. Further, in the absence of documentary proof, fees for the purpose from the complainant as alleged on the petition. Hence, due to lack of clarity, we dismiss the complaint and freed the Ops from the allegations of deficiency in service. The I.A.Case is dispose of earlier by this Forum and orders if any passed in this regard is to be carried out as per the observations of this present complaint.

                    Having observations reflected above, the complaint is dismissed without any cost.

                 Pronounced in the open Court, this the 12th day of September,2019.                           

                              I, agree.

                                 Sd/-                                     Sd/-

                           MEMBER                             PRESIDENT