SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that he purchased one tractor after being sanctioned a loan of Rs.6,82,648/- by the OP No.1-Bank. Said tractor was registered before the local Authority vide Regd. No.OR-01AD-3175. It is further alleged that the OP No.1-Bank had paid Rs.6,82,648/- to the OP No.2 towards the rate of said tractor, but the loan agreement shows that the OP No.1-Bank has sanctioned Rs.7,22,572/-. The complainant approached the OP No.1-Bank for rectification of the loan amount, but the concerned Bank denied to rectify the same. The Ops, being colluded with each other, has committed such error taking advantage of his innocence and joined their hands in extorting money from the poor and village rustic complainant.
3. The OP No.1 filed his written version denying the averments made in the complaint. He has specifically challenged the maintainability of the case. It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and he has no cause of action to file the case. Besides the above, it is stated by the OP No.1 that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.7,22,572/- from the Ops-Bank executing one Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement with a view to purchase one tractor and it was agreed between the parties that the complainant should repay the total loan amount within 60 instalments i.e. @ Rs.18,153/- from 1st to 59th instalments and 60th instalment @ Rs.9869/- with interest @ 17.50% starting from 2.8.2019 to 20.7.2024. Further, it is stated by the OP No.1-Bank that the complainant failed to pay the instalments and became defaulter. The complainant was intentionally defaulted in paying the outstanding dues of the OP No.1-Bank and with an oblique motive, he has filed this case with a view to deprive the OP No.1-Bank from its legitimate claim.
4. OP No.2, in his written version, has specifically stated that OP No.1-Bank had sanctioned the alleged loan in favour of the complainant for purchase of a tractor on verification & scrutiny of documents. This OP No.2 was directed to execute the work through the Bank and accordingly, the complainant had purchased one TAFE-MESSEY tractor cost of Rs.9,82,000/- from them and after discount, the rate was fixed at Rs.8,30,000/-, apart from a sum of Rs.30,000/- for registration fees and Rs.16,000/- for processing fees, in total Rs.8,76,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- only to the OP No.2. So, the loan sanction letter was issued by OP No.1-Bank for Rs.7,00,000/- out of Rs.7,22,572/- and rest amount of Rs.1,26,000/- will be paid by the complainant on instalment basis to the OP No.2. But the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues, as aforestated, to the OP No.2 in spite of repeated approach. The OP No.2 is no way connected with the rate of interest. The complainant has filed the case only to avoid the loan amount as well as outstanding amount.
5. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
6. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, before delve into the merits of the case, first of all, it is to be decided as to whether the case is maintainable or not.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and the documents relied upon by them, it is found that the complainant had taken the loan from OP No.1-Bank and purchased one tractor. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has not repaid the outstanding loan amount to the OP No.1-Bank nor to the OP No.2. Further, it is seen that OP No.1-Bank is the financier, from whom the complainant had taken loan for purchase of the tractor in question and the OP No.2 is the dealer of the tractor. Further, it is seen that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by not repaying a single instalment towards the outstanding dues. The complainant is silent about what kind of service the Ops have not been rendered. That apart, the complainant has availed the loan from the OP No.1-Bank and hence, he is a borrower.
8. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi have been pleased to observe in a case reported in 2015(4) CPR-148 (N.C) (Sunny & Others -vs.- Rajesh Tripathy) that financing and advancement of loan does not fall within purview of facility in connection with banking, transport, etc. as mentioned in Section 2(o) of C.P Act, 1986 and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. Further, the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi in III (2006) CPJ-247 (N.C) in the case of Ram Deshlahara -vs.- Magma Leasing Ltd. have been pleased to observe that under a hire purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of C.P Act and the petitioner is thus, not a consumer. Moreover, Ops-Bank have the right to recover their dues and any demand for payment of dues cannot be treated as threatening. Further, exercising legitimate right to recover the dues by a financer cannot be treated as deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Under the hire purchase agreement, it is the financer, who is the owner of the product business unit and the person, who takes the loan retain the product unit only as a Bailee/ trustee. Therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financer. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the observations of the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. Consequently, the case of the complainant deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 27th day of August, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
