Complainant  Smt.Simarjit Kaur  vide the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to restrain for seizure of the vehicle truck registered No.PB06AK9694, forcible, illegally and without due course of law from her and her husband, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband took vehicle loan for truck registered No.PB06AK9694 Engine No.40095ID0038412, Chasis No.MEC2812CBHP038446 from the opposite parties for earning his livelihood in the year 2018 and all documents of loan were executed at Pathankot. The opposite party no.1 has tie up with opposite party no.2 and its office at Pathankot.  She has next pleaded that her husband is presently lodged in Central Jail, Faridkot being as beneficiary she is filing the present complaint. Her husband is paying installments to the opposite parties regularly, even then the opposite parties are threatening her husband that they would cease the truck without due course of law. Unfortunately, a false case has been registered against her husband and now he is in judicial custody, therefore he made a default in making two three installments. The complainant and her husband have been suffering from mental tension and harassment due to the unlawful act of the opposite parties which tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that M/s.Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt.Ltd. i.e. the opposite parties is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The opposite party is a global renowned manufacturer of various types of vehicles and is globally acclaimed for its class and quality;  this Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable as the same has been filed by Simarjit Kaur; the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Commission by suppressing material facts and the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer Dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no deficiency in service has been alleged or established against the opposite party. On merits, it was submitted that husband of the complainant, Sukhwinder Singh had purchased the vehicle/Truck in question from the opposite parties is a matter of record. It was next submitted that the averments are bald, frivolous, misconceived and made without any merit and the instant complaint merits dismissal with costs. The opposite parties have no loan transaction with the complainant’s husband, Sukhwinder Singh and hence due to lack of any cause of action, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.         Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed her own affidavit alongwith  photocopies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

5.      Alongwith the written statement, opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed affidavit of Jagdeesh Kumar S, Authorised Signatory Ex.OP-1,2/A alongwith photocopy of Tax Invoice Ex.oP-1,2/1.

6.      We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by counsel for the opposite parties and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.    Ex.C-2 is the copy of the R.C. of the vehicle issued in the name of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh i.e. complainant’s husband. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 are the copies of the account statements, showing the payment of loan installments in the name of the finance company i.e. Daimler Finance Services.

8.     Ex.R-1/1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the husband of the complainant purchased the vehicle in dispute.

9.    In the present case, the case of the complainant is that as there was a default in the payment of loan installment by her husband, the opposite parties are threatening her husband that they will seize the truck. Firstly, the complainant has not produced on record any authorization letter signed by her husband to file the present complaint on his behalf. Secondly, as per Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 the complainant’s husband made the repayment of the loan installments to ‘Daimler Financial Services’, who has not been made a party in the present complaint. Opposite parties too have written in their written statement that the complainant had no loan transaction with them, therefore the question of seeking the repossession of the value does not arise. Finance Company, from whom the complainant’s husband availed the loan, has not been made a party. As such, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties.

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is observed that the present complaint is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with no orders as to costs.

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

            (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                               (Bhagwan Singh Matharu)

September 01, 2021                                             Member

*MK*