Heard learned counsel for the respondents. None appears for the appellant.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. After going through the pleadings and the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, the unsworn details of the fact of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-15-F-1055 by incurring loan of Rs.4,55,000/- from the OPs. Complainant alleged inter alia that although he has paid the instalments but the OPs without his knowledge repossessed the vehicle and sold away the same. Finding no other way, complaint was filed by the complainant.
4. OPs filed written version stating that all the allegations made in the complaint petition are not correct. It is a fact that complainant has borrowed money from the OPs. Due to default in payment of EMIs, the vehicle was repossessed and after giving opportunity to the complainant, the vehicle was sold away. Therefore, the OPs have no any deficiency of service on their part.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
5. Coming to the next point of objection, admittedly the complainant is running the financed vehicle as passenger bus. Therefore, the complainant is earning money out of the said vehicle. Although the complainant has averred that the vehicle has been purchased for maintaining his livelihood, there is no evidence on record that the vehicle has been used for self employment purpose. Therefore, we hold that the finance obtained by the complainant is for commercial purpose and hence the complainant is not a consumer.
6. Since it has already been held that the complainant is not a consumer, it is not necessary to decide the matter on merit.
Accordingly the case is dismissed as not maintainable.”
6. In the memo of appeal submitted by the appellant it is averred that the learned District Forum has not understood the meaning of ‘commercial purpose’. On the other hand, the learned District Forum committed wrong by holding that the finance was obtained by the complainant for commercial purpose which is not a fact. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that complainant has failed to prove by evidence with regard to livelihood for which the learned District Forum has rightly observed that the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose and evidence is required to show the manner of living but in the instant case, the complainant has not done so. Therefore, the learned District Forum has passed the correct order which should be affirmed.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal memo, impugned order including the DFR.
9. The aforesaid Para – 5 and 6 do not disclose on what basis the complaint was dismissed. On the other hand, learned District Forum has only passed the general remark without discussing the case of the complainant. When there is no material discussed, he requested to remand the matter should be remanded. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing and disposal of same within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 20.9.2021 to receive further instruction from it. Learned District Forum would dispose of the matter afresh without being influenced by any observation made in this order but as per materials produced before it.
10 . Both parties are directed to download the order of this Commission from the Confonet or Website of this Commission and treat same as if received from this Commission and produce the same before the learned District Forum on 20.9.2021 for taking further instruction from it.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
