Brief fact of this case is that, the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the Op.No.1(Branch office situated at Ram Mandir Road,Kendujhar) to purchase a Swaraj Tractor in order to maintain his livelihood and Op.No 3 is the proprietor of Tractor Show Room. The complainant purchased Swaraj 742FE Tractor bearing Engine No.421001/52D10130,ChassisNo.WZCD92654107883 and a trolley with Bumper. The complainant has paid Rs.6,00,000/- for Tractor and Rs.1,20,000/- for Trolley to the OP.No.3 and out of total Rs.7,20,000/- the complainant has paid Rs.1,37,000/- as margin money and Rs.5,83,000/- was availed as loan  fromNo.1&2.The complainant has received the above said Tractor on dt.31.01.2019 with a challan of Rs.7,20,000/- in his name from  the OP.No.3. When the complainant asked for Original retail invoice and sale certificate the OP.No.3 has told that as the vehicle is hypothecated to the financer, the paper shall be handed over through Financer. After several approach by the complainant to obtain the required papers for Registration of the vehicle, the OP.No.1&2 did not respond. The complainant paid another Rs.31,000/- to OP.No.3 for registration of his vehicle on 20.02.2019 through his staff and also obtained a money receipt of Rs.31,000/- and the OP.No.3 said that the after registration the papers shall be sent through registered post. In the meanwhile 10 months has already passed but the Ops have failed to provide the required papers for which the complainant has sustained loss as the vehicle is still in off road condition. In spite of all the above deficiency of services the complainant in order to avoid increase of loan dues has been paying monthly instalments but as the vehicle is not on road, he cannot continue to repay the EMI apprehending that his tractor may be repossessed by the Ops at any time. The motive and act of the Ops are coming under unfair trade practice, deficiency of services, monetary exploitation and to take more profit from the complainant. The attitude of the Ops has been forced the complainant in to unnecessary tension, mental agony and harassment. Hence, the complainant prayed the Hon’ble Forum to direct the OP.No.3 to provide the Original Retail invoice, Sale Certificate, R.C. Book to the complainant and further direct the OP.No.1&2 to provide the Contract paper, loan repayment schedule and statement of loan account and revise the loan repayment schedule by extension of date of repayment or to take return back the hypothecated vehicle by returning the amount deposited by the complainant. Further, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may direct the Ops to pay compensation a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and mental harassment.

The complainant relies upon the following documents:

1. Photocopy of Challan on dt.31.01.2019 .
2. Photocopy of money receipt on dt.20.02.2019.

On the above complain the case is admitted and notice issued to Ops where OP No.1 & 2 filed their written version jointly and OP No.3, the authorized dealer filed his written version separately.

                OP No.1 & 2 in their written version submitted that the present complaint petition is not maintainable against them. The complainant has neither averred anything with regard to deficiency in service nor with regard to unfair trade practice adopted by the present OPs warranting interference by this Hon’ble Commission. The prayer made in the petition is completely not tenable in the eyes of law keeping in view of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the instant complaint should be dismissed out rightly against the Ops for mis joinder of parties. The complainant in the loan application submitted by him at the time of agreement has categorically admitted that he has purchased the Swaraj Tractor 742 FE-42 HP-742FXDC540 and Swaraj Trolley 4WHL Hydraulic by obtaining loan from the present OP which he intended to use for Agriculture purpose. In absence of specific pleading in the complaint petition with regard to the use of the machine for earning livelihood adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant. Therefore the consumer complaint is not maintainable as he is not a consumer. It is pertinent to mention here that the 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.The complainant was using the  vehicle for earning livelihood, therefore the present consumer complaint has to be dismissed on the said ground for which copy of the loan application on dt.17.02.2019 is annexed as Annexure-A series. As per the clause of the loan agreement any dispute between the parties are to be settled by way of “Arbitration” as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 and clause of the said agreement defines the ‘jurisdiction’ of such proceedings. The Agreement clearly stipulates that jurisdiction of all the disputes arising out of the present agreement shall be exclusively tried by courts at Mumbai. It is humbly submitted that, the moment the seat is designated, it is akin to exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement then as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of INDUS MOBILE Distribution Pvt.Ltd. Vrs- Datawind Innovation Pvt. Ltd.(2017)7 SCC678 the court at that particular place has exclusive jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore the instant complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                The background of the case was that, the complainant had approached the answering Ops in the year 2019 for sanction and disbursal of the loan amount of Rs.5,30,000/- for purchasing the above Tractor &Trolley . After being satisfied with the financial credibility of the complainant the OP sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.5,30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- to the complainant. Agreement value (including interest) to be repaid by the complainant was Rs.8,37,800/- and two agreements to that effect was executed on dt.20.02,2019 and 21.02.2019 vide Agreement No.6024446 and 6025706 respectively. The present OPs are not responsible for the registration of the hypothecated vehicle rather as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it is the duty of the borrower to get the vehicle registered at his own risk and to produce the proof of creation of hypothecation before the present OPs within 15 days of such registration. As per the provision of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement read with section41(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act,1989. In case of Agreement No.6024446 valued at Rs.8,37,800/-was to be repaid by the complainant in 59 periodical installments starting from 15.04.2019 and ending on 15.02.2024 within the 15^th day of every month. Similarly in case of Agreement No.6025706 valued at Rs.82,950/- was to be repaid by the complainant in 59 installments starting from 15.04.2019 and ending on 15.02.2022 with in the 15^th day of every month. Copy of the statement of Accounts were annexed   as Annexure-B Series. As per the clause  of the agreement, the borrower(complainant) is supposed to make the payment of the periodical installments in time and on failure of the borrower to do the same, the lender(OP) shall be entitled to the remedies as available under the said Agreement.

                In their written version OP No 1 and 2  pointed   out that the complainant himself has mentioned in the complaint that OP.No.3 is responsible for providing the vehicular documents required for the purpose of registration. Hence, due to failure of the OP No.3 to get the vehicle registered the present answering OP cannot be held liable as no deficiency of service.

                It is therefore prayed that  as per all the facts and circumstances above mention 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  Hon’ble Court may please be absolve these OPs from all the allegations made herein the instant petition and pass such order to strike out the name of this OP.No.1&2 from the cause title of this complaint case for mis joinder parties as well as being devoid of any merit.

The OP relies upon the following documents:-

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

                OP No.3 in his written version admitted the facts in para No.1 to 3 of the complaint petition  this. The complaint has not paid the money due to him and the total financial amount given has been hold up due to non-submission of some documents by the complainant and this OP in fact not received the total consideration amount of the Tractor and Trolley. The complainant has to pay some amount to this Op and the papers and hence this complication and disputes arises only for the negligence and careless attitude of the complainant. Hence, this OP is not be blamed for the same and it is not true that this OP has received the amount of Rs.31,000/- for registration of the vehicle. The true facts of the case are that the complainant has to pay the total amount of Rs.7,51,000/- towards (without registration  which the complainant has agreed to do from his own fund)the consideration of Tractor and Trolley and out of that an amount of Rs.5,90,000/- will have to be given by the financial institution  but the  financial institution paid only Rs.5,60,000/- and hold back Rs.30,000/- . Similarly the complainant paid only an amount of Rs.1,31,000/- in total. The OP No.3 has received   an amount of Rs.6,91,000/- in total. The financial institution hold   an amount of Rs.30,000/-. So the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the complainant in total Rs.60,000/-. The documents from the financial institution and in this regard the initiative required to be taken by the complainant is lacking. So the delay has caused due to non-payment pf full amount of the purchase and the complainant is solely responsible for the same and no other person can be blamed for the same for his mental agony and financial loss. So he cannot be compensated for his own fault. Hence prayed, this complaint petition may be rejected with costs and further any other order deemed just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the OP.

The OP relies upon the following documents:-

No documents enclosed.

ISSUES.

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 complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?                                                       

FINDINGS

The complainant has availed a Tractor loan from OP.No.1&2 finance
Company. OP No.3 is the proprietor Sri Govinda Agri Tech and the authorised dealer to sell Swaraj 742FE Tractor bearing Engine No.421001/52D10130,Chasis No.WZCD92654107883 to the complainant. The complainant has availed this Tractor loan and purchased the said Swaraj tractor in order to maintain his livelihood. In this context Op.No.1&2 has cited 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. In this case the OP.No.1 authorized dealer has supplied a tax invoice of Rs.7,20,000/- out of which the Finance Company has made payment  of Rs.5,60,000/- .The dispute between OP.No.1 and complainant for total amounting to Rs.60,000/- which has to be paid by the complainant. As per the version filed by OP.No.1 the complainant is solely responsible for his own default. The OP.No.3 has issued a money receipt of Rs.31,000/- towards credit collection but the complainant demanding that he gave this money to OP.No.3  for registration of the vehicle. There is no document filed by the complainant that OP.No.3 has received Rs.31,000/ for registration of his vehicle. In this situation there was dispute between the complainant and the OP.No.3 regarding registration of the vehicle which creates doubt. So the deficiency made by OP.No.3  for registration has not been fully proved by the complainant.

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.

The Misc.Case bearing No.02 of 2020 has no merits to decide.                                                                                             

ORDER

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