Complainant Paramjit Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,67,915/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due i.e. 7.10.2012 the date of accident till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment suffered by him alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses in his favour, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a Truck bearing Registration No.RJ -11-GA-2151 and the said Truck was financed and insured by opposite parties no.1 and 2 with the opposite party no.3 who is known to be a General Insurance Company of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. One of the General Insurance Company office of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 is also situated at Jalandhar City. He has purchased the Truck in question for earning his exclusive livelihood by way of self employment. He has hired the services of the opposite parties and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that he has purchased the above mentioned Truck and he had made the part payment to the seller and the remaining amount of Rs.7,55,150/- was got financed by him from the opposite parties no.1 and 2. The opposite parties no.1 & 2 have got insured the said Truck at the time of financing the same with the opposite party no.3 for the sum assured Rs.9,00,000/-. As per the conditions/settlement arrived between the parties, he has to make repayment of the financed amount in 47 equal monthly installments each having amount of Rs.23,503/-.  He has next pleaded that on 6.10.2012 his driver namely Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh.Mohinder Singh, resident of village Udhipur Road, Awankha, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was driving the said Truck which was loaded and was going towards Ganga Nagar from Palli and when on 7.10.2012 at about 11:30 A.M. the said Truck reached near Bikaner Bye Pass, the Truck was suddenly caught by fire. The Truck was under the fire and all the material lying in the Truck alongwith Truck become ashes. In this regard F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Beeshwal, District Bikaner. Prior to the caught fire of the said vehicle, he was regularly paying the installments to the opposite party no.2 and in total he has paid Rs.2,58,533/- to the opposite party no.2 as 11 installments of the vehicle in question. After the catching of fire incident of the vehicle, he immediately rushed to the office of opposite parties and told the whole story.  The opposite party no.1 and 2 have done illegal act with him and did not disclose to him about the fact that they have access the interest of 11.57% as flat, rather as per the instructions and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the rate of interest is liable to be decreased/decreasing in nature. But the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have acted upon arbitrarily to the guidelines and instructions of the R.B.I. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have financed the vehicle for the sum of Rs.7,55,150/- and the said Truck was got financed by them on 26.11.2011 and the said truck got caught on fire on 6.10.2012 and he has paid 11 installments of Rs.23,503/- with the opposite parties meaning thereby he has deposited Rs.2,58,533/- with the opposite parties uptil the period when the truck in question caught fire. Thereafter, the opposite party no.3 had paid the amount of Rs.6,35,000/- to the opposite parties no.1 and 2 as insurance claim of the damaged vehicle in question and afterward, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 sold the body of the burnt truck and they have earned Rs.1,20,000/- and as such they have received a sum of Rs.7,55,000/- in total i.e. Rs.6,35,000/- as insurance claim and Rs.1,20,000/- as sold parts of the truck in question against the financed vehicle amounting to Rs.7,55,150/-. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are entitled to interest in that event also the opposite parties can claim interest from 26.11.2011 to 7.10.2012 i.e. for the period of 1 year i.e. 12 months at the flat rate of 11.57% per annum on the financed amount of Rs.7,55,150/- which has illegally been levied by them on him, in that event also, the interest comes to Rs.90,618/- but on the other hand, he has deposited the sum of Rs.21,58,533/-, meaning thereby after the deduction of interest also, he is entitled for the sum of Rs.1,67,915/-. He has number of times approached to the opposite parties with the request that they will make the payment of Rs.1,67,915/- in  his favour alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due i.e. 7.10.2012 i.e. the date of accident, till its actual realization but all the times, the opposite parties have procrastinated the matter pending with one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the opposite party no.1 and 2, at any stage, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant himself has furnished an affidavit before the opposite party no.1 to the effect that the opposite party can settle the claim of the complainant from the opposite party no.3 and adjust the same against his loan account. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Actually, the opposite party no.1 has rather waived & adjusted various amount at the time of closing the loan case of the complainant, on humanitarian grounds, keeping in view the fact that the financed vehicle has caught fire. Even otherwise, as per the law of the land, the amount of claim so given by the insurance company is always first adjusted against the loan account of the borrower, as the finance company has the first charge over the said vehicle till the whole loan amount is fully liquidated. The computer generated statement of accounts of the complainant duly maintained by the opposite party in its ordinary and usual course of business. On merits, it was admitted that the truck No.RJ-11-GA-2151 was financed by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant and for the said finance case, loan agreement No.XSHUGDR00000663980 was entered into between the complainant and opposite party no.1 at Jalandhar. The relation between the complainant and the opposite party is contractual and in no way the complainant could said to be a consumer.  It had come to the notice of the opposite party no.1 from the complainant that his truck had caught fire.  Actually, the complainant was irregular in making the monthly installments from the very beginning of the loan case which is clear from the statement of accounts and since the complainant was not paying the installments regularly, the officials of the opposite parties visited to the complainant time and again and then the complainant informed about the incident. It is submitted that in earlier complaints filed by the complainant against the opposite parties he had took different plea and submitted that the opposite parties have already received Rs.2,12,640/- without any proof and now in the present complaint he alleged that in total the complainant has paid Rs.2,58,533/- to opposite party no.2. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath, he is liable to be bar under the rule of estoppels. The complainant himself has furnished an affidavit before the opposite party no.1 to the effect that the opposite party no.1 can settle the claim of the complainant from the opposite party no.3 and adjust the same against his loan account. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. Actually, the opposite party no.1 has rather waived & adjusted various amount at the time of closing the loan case of the complainant, on humanitarian grounds, keeping in view the fact that the financed vehicle has caught fire. Even otherwise, as per the law of the land, the amount of claim so given by the insurance company is always first adjusted against the loan account of the borrower, as the finance company has the first charge over the said vehicle till the whole loan amount is fully liquidated. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.      Upon notice, the opposite parties no.3 appeared and filed its written reply through their counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is not within limitation; the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite parties have no link with the installments and amount financed as such these facts denied for want of knowledge. The facts regarding payment of insurance amount is subject to verification and as per record. Regarding other facts i.e. interest charged by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and regarding payment of installments are denied for want of knowledge also. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Chaman Lal Ex.C2 alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

6.         Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikal Sharma attorney of M/s.Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Co. Ltd. Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/7 including Ex.OP1,2/2A and closed the evidence.

7.         Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashutosh Authorized Signatory Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have thoroughly examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of the opposite party (OP1&2) financers’ refusal to pay-back/ refund the complainant’s alleged share-amount of Rs.1,67,915/- in the insurance claim receipts of Rs.6,35,000/- from the OP3 insurers besides the receipt of salvage sales-proceeds of Rs.1,20,000/- of the burnt-wreckage of the complainant’s insured Truck financed by them. On the other hand, the OP (1&2) financers have deposed that an outstanding balance amount of Rs. 1,83,668/- had to be waived of by them to close the complainant’s Truck Loan A/c even after the due appropriation of the insurance claim and salvage proceeds etc.

9.       We find that both the contesting parties have duly put forth their own lengthy and elaborate calculations in line with their own interpretations of the terms of loan agreements and RBI guidelines etc., little realizing that ‘disputes’ pertaining to ‘Rendition & Settlement’ of accounts are not ‘consumer’ complaints and as such do not fall within the ambit and adjudicatory jurisdiction as bestowed by the benevolent statute namely: the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. We are strengthened in our above legal proposition by virtue of the judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Appeal # 450/2004 titled: Ashok Leyland vs Himanshu S Thuma; duly referring therein the case titled: Manager, St. Marys Hire Purchase (P) Ltd., vs. N A Jose (1995) 3 CPJ 58 (NC); to finally settle the issue/interpretation of statutory law in question, here.

10.     In the light of the all above, we are not inclined to proceed ahead with the current adjudicatory pertaining to the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.                  

       (Naveen Puri)

            President

ANNOUNCED:                                               (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 15, 2016                                                            Member.

*MK*