Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/536

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB Finance Service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                         Complaint No: 536 dated 27.08.2018.                                                                          Date of decision: 11.09.2018  

         

Karamjit Singh aged 51 years son of S.Raghvir Singh, resident of Dhuri, District Sangrur, at present confined in Central Jail, Sangrur.                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant                                                  Versus

1.HDB Financial Services Limited, 5^th Floor, D.J.House, Old Nagardas Road, Near Amboli Subway, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069, through its Director/M.D.

2.HDB Financial Services Limited, DVS Tower, First Floor, 384, Industrial Area, R.K.Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

3.Sukhraj, Agent, HDB Financial Services Limited, DVS Tower, First Floor, 384, Industrial Area, R.K.Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties

            Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                        SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:-

For complainant            :         Sh.Sudhir Gakhar, Advocate.                         

ORDER

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant purchased a new Ashok Leyland 3116 Truck bearing registration No.PB-13-AF-5257 in 2013 and got it financed from Ops for a sum of Rs.19,75,000/-. Rs.53,900/- was the amount of each of EMI’s payable by the complainant. Complainant is a transporter by profession and he got financed his other vehicles also from Ops. The vehicle named above got financed through OP3 an agent. Signatures of complainant were obtained on various blank forms/blank papers/blank stamp papers and blank proformas on the pretext of completion of formalities. Complainant started making repayment of loan installments to Ops regularly. It is claimed that entire loan amount along with interest stand paid to Ops. Complainant got financed as many as 7 vehicles from Ops through different loan transactions. As and when the EMIs/installments were used to be paid in cash, then OP2 and OP3 did not issue any receipt regarding that payment. Rather, Ops used to adjust the amount of installment/EMI in some other account, but without disclosing the details of account against which, the installment was used to be adjusted. An amount of Rs.1,99,000/- was paid in cash regarding the loan amount of above numbered truck on 25.1.2018 along with demand draft of Rs.26,000/- dated 25.1.2018 towards final settlement of loan account. Two receipts dated 31.1.2018 were issued. NEC/NOC/Clearance certificate has not been issued by Ops, despite approach by the complainant many times. However, truck in question was illegally and forcibly stopped in District Karnal on 22.2.2018 at about 9:30 AM by the officials of Ops. However, despite showing the receipt of full and final payment by the driver, officials of Ops did not acknowledge the said receipt. Matter in this respect was taken up with the Banking Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India, Sector-17, Chandigarh, but to no effect. Due to illegal detention of vehicle, complainant suffered loss of more than Rs.3 lac and that is why, this complaint filed after serving legal notice dated 5.3.2018 for seeking direction to Ops to issue NOC/NEC to the complainant in respect of the above said vehicle. Compensation of Rs.3 lac for the sustained loss and of Rs.1 lac for mental agony and harassment also claimed.

2.                Arguments at admission stage heard.

3.                From the pleadings of complaint itself, it is made out that complainant has not only got financed the truck in question, but even seven other trucks financed from Ops for carrying the profession of a transporter. So, in view of these allegations, it is obvious that loan was availed by the complainant from Ops for carrying on business of transportation. In view of this, it is obvious that services of Ops were availed by the complainant for commercial purposes namely carrying on transport business. As and when services availed for commercial purposes, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in cases titled as Manu Talwar vs. DPT Ltd-IV(2015)CPJ-396(N.C.); Inderjit Dutta vs. Samridhi Developer and others-II(2015)CPJ-342(N.C.) and Puneet Singh vs. Aerens Entertainment Zone Limited-2015(4)CLT-277(N.C.). After going through ratio of these cases, it is made out that when commercial space/flat/shop booked or purchased for commercial purposes by investing the amount, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer, due to which, consumer complaint will not be maintainable. Ratio of all these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here also as per case of complainant itself, the loan availed for carrying on transportation business for purchase of seven trucks including the truck in question.

4.                Even in case of Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House-2015(IV)CLT-265(N.C.), it has been held that if the car purchased for use of the Director of the company for commercial purpose, but not exclusively for earning livelihood by way of self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer. Likewise, in case of Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited-(2011)1-Supreme Court Cases-525, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that if services availed in respect of goods purchased for commercial purposes, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer. Direct authority on the point qua case in hand is of Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.), which lays that when purchase of truck chassis made for expanding the existing transport business, then the purchaser concerned will not be  a consumer, more so, when the purchase not shown to be made for exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. In view of ratio of above cited cases, it is obvious that as the complainant got financed the truck in question for carrying on transport business without intention of earning livelihood by way of self employment and as such, complainant is not a consumer. Being so, consumer complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

5.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself because of its being not maintainable because complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum for redressal of his grievances. Consequently, application for interim injunction also dismissed through this order itself. Copies of order be supplied to complainant free of costs as per rules.

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room. 

                             (Vinod Gulati)                                    (G.K. Dhir)

                              Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 11.09.2018.

Gurpreet Sharma