Brief fact of this case is that, the complainant had purchased a TATA LPT Truck bearing Regd.No.OR09P2984 under the financial assistance of OP. After purchasing the same the complainant made it roadworthy by spending Rs.2,50,000/- for body building and other repairing work from his pocket. As per the agreement executed between the parties, the complainant had to repay the loan amount with interest in 48 nos. of monthly instalment of Rs.29510/- each. On dated 08.08.2018 the said vehicle of the complainant had met with an accident near Railway over bridge, Silsuasn, Keonjhar and for which Sadar Police station seized the same vide  Case No.203 of 2018 and GR No.1121 of 2018.The said vehicle was released after direction of the Hon’ble SDJM, Keonjhar vide order dt.27.12.2018 in CMC Case No.266/2018 with a condition that as and when required the said vehicle shall be produced before the  SDJM, Keonjhar and the complainant shall not sale or transfer the ownership. In the meanwhile 3nos. of MACT cases No.68/2019, 69/2019 & 102/2019 have been instituted against the said vehicle connecting to the PS Case No.203 of 2018 and GR No.1121 of 2018 and the above cases are pending before the MACT, Keonjhar. After released of the said vehicle the complainant has given the vehicle for repairing works and the repairing work has not been completed due to non-availability of some spare parts. As the said vehicle is not on road since the date of accident, the complainant could not be able to repay the instalment amount in time. On dated 15.12.2019 the complainant asked the OP for a statement of loan account and copy of repayment schedule with a copy of contract paper in order to repay the exact outstanding dues, but the OP refused to provide the same rather asked the complainant to surrender the aforesaid vehicle. As the Ops has not been cooperating to settle the outstanding dues with intent to repossesses the vehicle of the complainant the complainant finding no other way took shelter before this Hon’ble Forum. The motive and act of the Ops is coming under illegal trade practice, deficiency of service, monetary exploitation and to repossess the vehicle to make more profit from the complainant. Hence, it is prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, the OP may be directed to supply the required documents i.e statement of Loan Account, copy of repayment schedule and copy of contract paper to the complainant and the schedule period of repayment may pleased be enhanced for another 6 months and further prayed that direction may be issued to Ops not to repossesses the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR09P-2984 till disposal of the case. The complainant has not filed any documents to substantiate his case.

            Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. All Ops appeared and filed their written version in detail. In their written version the Op 1&2 stated that the present complaint petition is not maintainable against the Ops in view of the prayers made in the said petition. The prayer made in the petition is completely not tenable in the eyes of law before this Hon’ble Commission keeping in view of the CP Act 2019 and the instant complaint should be dismissed as it is an unnecessary harassment. The borrower of the loan and the lender are bound by the terms and conditions applicable for the loan stipulated under the agreement. The complainant had approached the Ops in the year 2018 for sanction and  disbursal of the loan amount of Rs.10,90,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a TATA LPT 2518 TC with CAB ABS under hypothecation to the Ops. The OP sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.10,90,000/- to the complainant, agreement value(including interest)to be paid was Rs.13,57,460/- and an agreement to that effect was executed on 27.02.2018 vide Agmt.No.5275027. The agreement value was to be repaid by the complainant on every 5^th of the month as EMIs of Rs.29,150/- each. The complainant is a habitual defaulter and substantial amount of Rs. 9,20,487/- is due from the commercial vehicle in question as on 23.02.2021(Statement of Account dt.23.02.2021 is annexed as Annexure-A). In view of such continuous default of instalment dues the OP Finance Company has approached the complainant through letters and personal contacts to pay the same but the complainant is deliberately and intentionally not clearing up the dues and has retained the said vehicle under his custody without any reasonable excuse. In order to avoid the legitimate dues of the Ops the complainant has filed the instant complaint which is false, frivolous contentions envisaged in the complaint itself. It is further evident the vehicle is used for commercial gains and the complainant had also financed and owns another two commercial vehicles bearing Regd.No.OR09K0402 & OD16C2196 including the vehicle in question(statement of Accounts of vehicles are annexed B-series).

            The Consumer Protection Act,1986 in section 2(d) defines the ‘consumer’ for “commercial purpose does not include use by “ a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works-Vs-P.S.G. Industrial Institute reported in (1995)2SCC 583 has categorically explained the object, meaning and purpose of the ‘Explanation’ of Section 2(d) of 1986 Act to conclude in paragraph 21 of the judgement that- A person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment is within the definition of the expression ’consumer’. It was further concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court that whether a person has bought goods for “commercial purposes” within the meaning of the terms as enumerated in section2(d) of the 1986 Act is a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. It is humbly stated by the OP that the said agreement categorically states about exist two clauses namely, the ‘Arbitration’ clause and ‘jurisdiction’ clause in the aforesaid agreement. An important judgement of the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Private ltd Vs Datawind innovations Pvt.Ltd,Civil Appeal Nos.5370-5371 of 2017(Arising out of SLP(CIVIL) Nos 27311-27312 of 2016 clearly mandates that when there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement stating that the courts at a particular place alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement, it would oust all other courts’ jurisdiction in the matter even in a case where no part of cause of action arises at that place. Hence, this Hon’ble Forum does not lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.Therefore the instant complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            It is submitted that since the borrower has executed loan agreement, the terms and conditions are binding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs.DHL Worldwide Expresss Courier (1996)4SCC 704 held that” when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its & conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and circumstances, in which he has signed the contract. He is bound by its terms and conditions of the contract.”It is humbly submitted again that not a single allegation made against the answering Ops by the complainant in the complaint petition has merit to stand on its own legs and no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be attributed to the OP No.1&2 for the fault of the complainant himself. Hence, it is crystal clear that the complainant has filed this petition as an afterthought with malafide intention for the reason well known to him.

            It is therefore prayed that as per all the facts and circumstances above mentioned the OP No.1&2 is no way liable for any negligence or deficiency in service on its part for which the petitioner has suffered any mental harassment. For this, the Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased enough to absolve the Ops from all the allegations made herein and dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

The OPs relies upon the following documents:

1. Annexure-A
2. Annexure-B series.

On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
3. Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
4. Whether the case is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of party.
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?                                               

                                         FINDINGS

All issues are interlinked with each other. The complainant has prayed to supply loan account statement, copy of Agreement and not to repossess the vehicle. On the other hand the OP finance company strongly denied the prayer because it  has not made any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the complainant. There was a loan agreement between parties. As per the agreement any dispute or difference arises between parties shall be decided by an Arbitrator Tribunal. A decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engg. Works-Vrs-PSG Industries Institute(AIR 1995 SC1428) has clearly held that if any person obtain any goods for commercial purpose  such person has to be excluded from the purview of section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. So far as the arbitration agreement between the parties is concerned the complainant is a borrower and OP. Finance Company is a lender. The relationship between borrower and lender is outside the purview of Consumer protection Act. And the account dispute between parties is civil in nature and this Commission has no interference in account disputes between the parties.

Under the above situation this Commission feels that the dispute of complainant and OP finance Company arises which is to be solved as perarbitration agreement which is not the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. So also the dispute between parties for account is civil in nature which is not coming under Consumer Protection Act. So the complainant has not proved any deficiency of service by Ops. So this case is not maintainable. He is not entitled to get any relief.                 

ORDER

The present complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.