The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Managing Director, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Guindy, Chennai.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant purchased a mini goods carrier of AL DOST LS model bearing No.OD-01E-7864 being financed by O.P No.1 for Rs.5,69,856/- (Rupees Five lakhs sixty nine thousand eight hundred fifty six) only to be repaid in 47 EMIs @ Rs.12,125/- (Rupees Twelve thousand one hundred twenty five) only w.e.f 30.09.2014 to 01.08.2018, excluding Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only towards insurance to be repaid accordingly for 30 months i.e. up to 28.02.2017. The insurance premium will be paid by the O.P No.1 before the authorised insurance Company. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only towards down payment before O.P No.1 on 30.08.2014 (date of sanction of loan), but a sum of Rs.1,10,505/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand five hundred five) only is reflected in Annexure-1-P-1, where an extra amount of Rs.5,070/- (Rupees Five thousand seventy) only is collected from the Complainant towards insurance as informed by O.P No.1, but said amount is grabbed by the O.Ps. The Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,125/- (Rupees Twelve thousand one hundred twenty five) only towards EMI and insurance charges of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only before the O.P No.1 on 30.09.2014. In addition, the O.P No.1 has charged extra amount in several occasions and also more than a sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand) only has also been charged to exploit the Complainant in order to grab illegally. Submission of 2nd year insurance premium receipt providing wrong chassis number caused detention of vehicle at Kolkata followed by issuance of another clearance certificate by O.P No.1 on 24.09.2015, the Complainant suffered heavy financial loss caused due to negligence and carelessness by the O.P No.1. Though the O.P No.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only for insurance, but has collected a sum of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand) only from the Complainant and again has levied a sum of Rs.24,050/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand fifty) only upon the Complainant against payment of Rs.22,660/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand six hundred sixty) only towards insurance. Delay in submission of insurance papers after 19.09.2016 instead of 05.09.2016, the vehicle was detained for 14 days suffering financial loss to the Complainant. Thus, the O.P No.1 has charged Rs.53,371/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand three hundred seventy one) only arbitrarily and unlawfully against the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant on receipt of demand notice from O.P No.1 requested the O.P No.1 for an amicable settlement and on failure, issued an Advocate notice to the O.P No.1, but in vain, rather the O.P No.1 issued another demand notice on 12.04.2018. Cause of action arose on 15.04.2018. Moreover, the O.P No.1 denied to make payment for the excess/ extra amount charged by them on 15.04.2018 and also threatened to seize the vehicle, causing mental agony to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for refund of extra amount charged, collection of extra amount along with interest and hand over of R.C book and legal documents along with compensation.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as the cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for Arbitration and Territorial Jurisdiction, where all the disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. The Complainant has no prima facie established the existence of any such fact that he was/ is not in a position to maintain his livelihood and that the vehicle was his only source of income. The fundamental maxim is that the plaintiffs in equity most come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. Since the Complainant is a habitual defaulter in payment of installment, the O.Ps have suffered huge loss in this transaction and there still remains a balance due of Rs.90,320/- (Rupees Ninety thousand three hundred twenty) only, legally recoverable from the Complainant by the O.Ps as on 04.07.2018. As per clause-13.1 of the agreement that an event of default would cause if the borrower fails to repay the loan or any fee, charges or costs, in the manner herein contained and any one of the installments or any other amount due hereunder remains unpaid after the date, which it is due and clause-14.2 of the agreement provides the O.Ps right to seize and repossess the asset in the event of default. It is false to say that the Complainant has paid Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only towards down payment against the loan. As per the account statement, the O.Ps have received Rs.1,10,505/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand five hundred five) only as total down payment from the Complainant, out of which Rs.1,05,054/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand fifty four) only is the margin money, which has been paid to the dealer, Rs.1,251/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred fifty one) only is the documentation charge and Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four thousand two hundred) only is service charge. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,25,054/- (Rupees Five lakhs twenty five thousand fifty four) only and the O.Ps have financed an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs twenty thousand) only, which has been paid to the dealer along with Rs.1,05,054/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand fifty four) only collected from the Complainant as dealer’s margin money. The vehicle delivery letter issued by the O.Ps to the dealer clearly shows that the dealer has received Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only. While issuing delivery letter to the dealer, as per information of the O.Ps received from the Complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.5,070/- (Rupees Five thousand seventy) only to the dealer for some costs regarding registration of the vehicle, the O.Ps accordingly mentioned that the dealer has received Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only. The Complainant neither proved payment of the excess amount nor made the dealer a Party in the case to prove the same. Some amount has been reflected as Additional Finance interest (AFI) and that has been levied for delayed payment as per the agreement. The O.Ps are not liable for any delayed insurance or for any extra collection of Rs.1,390/- (Rupees One thousand three hundred ninety) only. Payment of insurance depends upon balance in the loan account towards insurance. Due to insufficient balance in the loan account, the insurance could not be done in due time, for which the previous insurance expired and extra charges have been levied by the insurance company towards inspection of the vehicle etc., which has been charged from the Complainant in the account statement. By the time, the Complainant informed the O.Ps, insurance was already done by the O.Ps and that had to be cancelled, for which the amount of Rs.4,643/- (Rupees Four thousand six hundred forty three) only has been forfeited by the concerned insurance company. Since the case being based purely on account related issue, thorough evidence of accountants are required for proper adjudication of the case, which can be possible before the arbitrator or the Civil court. The O.Ps have further stated that the vehicle in question is a commercial one. Therefore, the Complainant cannot be treated to be a “Consumer” as defined in Sec-2(d) (ii) of the C.P Act-1986. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    5. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has purchased a mini goods carrier bearing Regd. No.OD-01E-7864 being financed by O.P No.1 for Rs.5,69,856/- (Rupees Five lakhs sixty nine thousand eight hundred fifty six) only to be repaid in 47 EMIs @ Rs.12,125/- (Rupees Twelve thousand one hundred twenty five) only w.e.f 30.09.2014 to 01.08.2018, excluding Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only towards insurance to be repaid in 30 months i.e. up to 28.02.2017. He has deposited down payment of Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only. Since wrong chassis number was provided by the O.P No.1, for which the Complainant faced much difficulties and the insurance papers were not produced in time. The O.P No.1 has charged Rs.53,371/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand three hundred seventy one) only arbitrarily and unlawfully against the Complainant. The O.Ps have also threatened to seize the vehicle, causing mental agony to the Complainant, for which he has filed this case praying for refund of extra amount charged with interest and hand over of R.C book and legal documents along with compensation. On the other hand, the O.Ps have argued that they have received Rs.1,10,505/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand five hundred five) only as total down payment from the Complainant instead of Rs.1,15,575/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred seventy five) only. Further, while issuing delivery letter to the dealer as per information of the O.Ps received from the Complainant that he had paid Rs.5,070/- (Rupees Five thousand seventy) only to the dealer for some costs regarding registration of the vehicle, which amount was included by the Complainant as down payment. The Complainant neither proved payment of the excess amount nor made the dealer a Party in the case to prove the same. Some amount has been reflected as Additional Finance interest (AFI) and that has been levied for delayed payment as per the agreement. Due to insufficient balance in the loan account, the insurance could not be done in due time, for which the previous insurance expired and extra charges have been levied by the insurance company towards inspection of the vehicle, which has been charged from the Complainant in the account statement. By the time, the Complainant informed the O.Ps, insurance was already done by the O.Ps and that had to be cancelled, for which the amount of Rs.4,643/- (Rupees Four thousand six hundred forty three) only has been forfeited by the concerned insurance company. Since the case being based purely on account related issue, thorough evidence of accountants are required for proper adjudication of the case, which can be possible before the arbitrator or the Civil court and not supported by this District Forum. The O.Ps have also challenged that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the vehicle is a commercial one. In support of his argument, the Advocate for the O.Ps has relied upon the authority reported in Complaint Case No.43/2010 in the case of Sushanta Kumar Acharya (Vrs.) Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar, where in it has been held by the Hon’ble State C.D.R Commission, Orissa that while the Finance Company-O.P is claiming more, the Complainant is stating that he is to pay a lesser amount, this being purely an accounts dispute between the Parties, so the Consumer Forum or the State Commission cannot decide the same. Furthermore, in support of it, reliance can be placed upon the authority reported in Civil Appeal No.6347 of 2012 in the case of M/s Micro Hotel P. Ltd. (Vrs.) M/s Hotel Torrento Limited & Ors., where in it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of loan, if the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time frame, it will disturb the equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the needs of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the installment by a defaulter may stand on the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance.   

                    6. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to dismiss as the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this Forum and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-      

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 30th day of November, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.