STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
HARYANA PANCHKULA
First appeal No.993 of 2016
Date of the Institution: 20.10.2016
Date of Decision: 30.10.2017
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.Khusi Ram, r/o H.No.115, Sector-20, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal
.….Appellant
Versus
1. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Kaithal C/o SCO No.329, Sector-20, HUDA Market, Kaithal, through his Branch Manager.
2. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Karnal. C/o SCO No.234, Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
3. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Registered office, Radhika, 2nd Floor, Law Garden Road, Navrangpur, Ahemdabad, Gujrat (380009)
.….Respondents
CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr.Neeraj Gupta Advocate counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is disposed by me alone because as per letter No.2579 dated 30.10.2017 I have been authorized to hold the proceedings singly.
2. It was alleged by complainant that he obtained a loan of Rs.14,79,969/- from opposite party (O.P.) No.1- HDB financial Services Ltd., on 25.11.2014. He was depositing monthly installments as per schedule. Sixth instalment was paid on 16.05.2015. Remaining amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid by him vide cheque No.039958 dated 20.05.2015, but, on 21.05.2015 O.P.No.1 issued letter demanding Rs.63,100.61 as pre payment charges, Rs.2611/- as late payment penalty and Rs.13351.13 as of interest. As per rules and regulations he was not liable to pay the amount demanded by them. To avoid further harassment he paid the amount demanded by O.ps. and they be directed to return the same.
3. In reply it was alleged that complainant obtained loan for commercial purpose and was not covered by definition of consumer as provided under section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “District Forum”). As per terms and conditions of agreement executed in between them complainant was liable to pay pre-payment charges etc. as detailed above. Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, concealment of true facts, estoppel etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.
4. After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Forum”) dismissed complaint vide impugned order dated 01.09.2016 on the ground that complainant settled all his account with OPs by paying the entire amount demanded by the O.ps.
5. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant has preferred this appeal.
6. Arguments heard. File perused.
7. The main question involved in this matter is whether complainant is covered by the definition of consumer of not.
8. Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that in appeal it has been specifically alleged that he obtained this loan for earning livelihood and self-employment. So he is covered by the definition of consumer.
9. This argument is devoid of any force. While deciding any matter the averments raised in the complaint are to be looked into. It was no where alleged by complainant in his pleadings that he obtained this loan for the purpose of self-employment. As per schedule No.1 clause 9 this loan was obtained for the purpose of business i.e. Commercial purpose. When loan was obtained for commercial purpose and he did not raise any plea about self-employment and earning livelihood he cannot be considered consumer as provided under section 2 (i) (d) of the Act. When complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer District Forum was not supposed to decide the case on merits because it is opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana and others (2013) 10 SCC 136 that judgement without jurisdiction is nullity. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and wrongly adjudicated upon the complaint. Resultantly appeal as well as complaint are dismissed.
October 30th, 2017 | | R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench | |
S.K.
