The Present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986.<br /> <br /> Brief fact of the case is that, the Complainant purchased a TATA LPT 1613 truck bearing registration No. OR-17-E-0089 on Dt.25/05/2006 for his business purpose which was being financed by the Opposite Party No.1(one), to be payable in equal monthly installments of Rs.27,543/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred forty three)only to cover the entire balance. The Complainant had paid Rs.1,92,801/-(Rupees one lac ninety two thousand eight hundred one)only for seven monthly installment and due to some financial difficulties, she could not pay 3(three) monthly installments to the Opposite Parties in time. The Complainant contends that, she has issued blank cheques as security for payment of the monthly installment, and it was agreed between the parties that, the Opposite Parties will present the cheques for realization of the amount. But on dt.17/05/2007 some persons came to Rly Station, Bargarh where the Driver was loading the truck, forcibly un-loaded the truck and took away the vehicle of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, the Opposite Parties or its agents were not authorised to take forcible possession as under the agreement, the complaint was liable to pay penal interest in case of default and the Opposite Parties have option to present the cheques in the Bank and in case, the cheque being dishonored the Opposite Parties could initiate proceeding under section 138, N.I. Act. Taking over possession of the vehicle by force or without recourse to due process of law amounts to deficiency in service violating the consumer service provider relationship.<br /> <br /> Hence this Complaint, praying for a direction may be given to the Opposite Parties to release and hand over the said vehicle i.e. OR-17-E-0089 hence forth to the Complainant and to pay Rs.65,000/-(Rupees sixty five thousand)only towards mental agony and business loss and 12%(twelve percent) interest on the amount as compensation besides litigation expenses.<br /> <br /> On being noticed, the Opposite Parties appeared and filed its version. In its version the Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that, as per the term and condition of the loan agreement entered into by the Parties, the Complainant has agreed to liquidate the entire loan amount of the vehicle in 35(thirty five) monthly equal installment of Rs.27,543/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred forty three)only to the Opposite Parties and the said financed vehicle was hypotheticed to the Opposite Party, Bank as security for due payment of the loan. But despite repeated requests, the Complainant deliberately failed and neglected to pay the equal monthly installment, the Opposite Party was compelled to take such repossession of the vehicle as per the term and condition of the agreement. The Opposite Party has every sort of right as per the agreement executed by them to take repossession of the vehicle in case it default payment.<br /> <br /> This Opposite Party questions the maintainability of this Complaint in the present Consumer Forum. Since the parties have acted upon the agreement, and chosen the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai Court.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that, the transaction between the borrower/Complainant and the Opposite Parties/financer is based on a contract and hence it was not service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Beach of contract by the Complainant due to default the payment as per the agreement executed between the parties the Complainant has no case and hence is not entitled for any compensation as claimed.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties further contend that, the vehicle in question was financed for commercial purpose and as such, the dispute between the parties did not fall with in the meaning of section 2( 1 )( d )( I ) of Consumer Protection Act.1986.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the Complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the Complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version and the copies of documents filed by the parties and found.<br /> <br /> It is not disputed by the Parties that, the Complainant has purchased the TATA LPT truck bearing No. OR-17-E-0089 for business purpose, being financed by the Opposite Parties to the payable in 35(thirty five) equal monthly installments of Rs.27,543/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred forty three)only each and his failure to pay some monthly installments due to financial difficulties.<br /> <br /> In para 8(eight) of the Complainant petition, it is admitted by the Complainant that, the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by some persons, from the driver of the said vehicle. So plying of TATA LPT truck by engaging a driver can not be said that, the truck was purchased for earing his livelihood. The Complainant has absolutely has no evidence to prove that the vehicle in question was used by him exclusively, for the purpose of earning his lively hood by means of self employment, as such the dispute between the parties did not fall with in the ambit of section 2( 1 )( d )( I ) of Consumer Protection Act.1986.<br /> <br /> Hence, the case is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Case disposed accordingly.<br />