DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 221 of 20-05-2011 Decided on : 09-09-2011
Pawanpreet Singh S/o S. Harmeet singh (aged about 35 years) R/o Ward No. 40, Gali No. 5, Ekta Nagar, Malout, Tehsil Malout District Sri Mukatsar Sahib. .... Complainant Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd., Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through Manager. V.K. Tele Service, Bhatti Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/ Authorized person Mr. Ajay (authorised agency of ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda for collection of installments from the customers of ICICI Bank Ltd.). Magma Fincorp Ltd., Near Sepal Hotel, Opposite Bikaner Misthan Bhandar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Authorized person ..... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Deepak Girdhar, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 exparte. Sh. J.S. Kohli, counsel for opposite party No. 3. O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Truck bearing registration No. RJ 13-GA-2167. On the allurement of the agent of opposite party No. 1, the complainant got financed the said truck from opposite party No. 1 and a total sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- was financed by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant on 18-07-2007 for purchase of said truck on interest @ 12.65% p.a. The loan amount was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs. 34,118/- each. The loan account number of the said truck is LVMLT-000010908265. The complainant availed loan of Rs. 3.00 Lacs and got financed the Tralla of the said truck for a sum of Rs. 3.00 Lacs from opposite party No. 1. The loan of Rs. 3.00 Lacs was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs. 8,229/- each and loan account number of Tralla/Body is LVMLT-00011017906. The opposite party No. 1 is ICICI Bank Ltd., Bathinda from whom the above said Truck and Tralla were got financed and opposite party No. 2 V K Tele Service is the authorised agency of opposite party No. 1 to collect the installments of loans from the customers and in turn to deposit the same with ICICI Bank Ltd., (opposite party No. 1) in the account of the customers. The opposite party No. 3 is Magma Fincorp Ltd., to whom opposite party No. 1 has authorized to collect the amounts/installments from the customers of opposite party No. 1. After getting the Truck and Tralla financed from opposite party No. 1, the complainant used to deposit the installments with opposite party No. 1 and on the directions of opposite party No. 1, to opposite party No. 2 and 3 also and as such, the complainant started making installments to all the opposite parties. The complainant was a lay man and the opposite parties under the threat of seizure of Truck and Tralla, used to receive more installments from the complainant. The complainant tallied the receipts issued by the opposite parties regarding deposit of installments with the statements of accounts issued by the opposite parties, he came to know that some of the installments deposited by the complainant have not been shown deposited in his account. The opposite parties have not shown an amount of Rs. 2,72,944/- in his loan account against Truck despite receiving the amount by opposite party No. 2 against receipts. Similarly the opposite parties have not shown Rs. 49,373/- in the statement of account deposited by complainant in the loan account of Tralla. The complainant alleged that opposite parties have received more amount than due from the complainant in both the above said loan account under threat of seizure and have not shown the said amount in the statement of account of the complainant and as such, he is entitled for the refund of the said amount of Rs. 2,04,338/-. The complainant requested the opposite parties many times to issue No Due Certificate and refund of the aforesaid amount, but they refused to do so. Hence, he has filed the present complaint. The opposite party No. 1 filed separate written reply and took legal objections that complainant is not consumer as he is a big transporter having so many employees and has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose; the remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of accounts as there is relationship of debtor and creditor between the parties. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that it is not liable for any act of V.K. Tele Services and no such payment was ever deposited by opposite party No. 2 with opposite party No. 1 and it has no objection if this Forum passes any appropriate order against opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has no concern with the receipts issued by opposite party No. 2 and the vehicle of the complainant was not seized by opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written reply and also took legal objection that complainant is not consumer as he is having so many commercial vehicles; the Truck Trailer was purchased by the complainant for augment of the business; complainant is big transporter, he has so many commercial vehicles, complainant has filed two different complaints of different vehicles, both the vehicles are of huge market value approx. 15 lac (each). It has been pleaded that complainant obtained loan from opposite party No. 1 and in the repayment process of the loan, the opposite party No. 1 recovered the part amount from the complainant and sold the recovery right to opposite party No. 3, agreement in this regard executed between higher authorities of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3. Thereafter, the complainant started paying the loan installments to the opposite party No. 3 and still there is outstanding principal loan amount of Rs. 2,11,727/- as on 1-06-2011 against the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 has legal right to recover the outstanding loan amount. The opposite party No. 2 has issued receipt against the payment, these receipts are placed on record by the complainant with the complaint, are of ICICI Bank issued prior to the agreement of sale of the portfolio by the ICICI bank of opposite party No. 1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against it. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. Argument pressed into service on the legal side by the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 is that complainant is not consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the 'Act' as the vehicle in question has been purchased for commercial purpose and complainant is big transporter having so many employees. The complainant has filed two different complaints of different vehicles and both the vehicles are of huge market value approx. 15 lac each. Learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument of learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 by submitting that the said vehicle has been purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood and as such, he is consumer of the opposite parties. In support of his arguments, he referred various authorities. The complainant has filed two complaints vide CC No. 221 & 222 of 20-05-2011 before this Forum against two different vehicles against which he raised loan approximately of Rs. 29.00 Lacs. The opposite parties have raised objection that complainant is a big transporter having so many employees and has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. As mentioned above, the complainant has filed two complaints for two vehicles separately alleging embezzlement of his amount but he has not disclosed about the ownership of other vehicles or that regarding the other complaint. Hence the version of the opposite parties that complainant is a big transporter having so many employees and has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, is found correct keeping in view that when the complainant has not disclosed in this complaint regarding filing of another complaint for other vehicle, it proves that he has not come to this Forum with clean hands and is having many vehicle and employees and has suppressed this material fact from this Forum. Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act is reproduced as under :-
2 (1)(d)(ii) 'Consumer' means any person who - hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.” Thus, this Forum is of the considered view that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purposes and hence he is not consumer. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd., 2011 (1) Apex Court Judgments 206 (S.C.) wherein, it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.2(1)(d)(i) – Consumer – Goods purchased for commercial purposes and/or service hired or availed for commercial purposes – Not a consumer within the meaning of the Act – Complaint not maintainable.” With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts. As a result of our foregoing discussion, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish that he falls within the ambit of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. This forum is not competent to entertain and try this complaint as complainant is not consumer. Complaint being not maintainable before this Forum, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to get his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law, from any other court/competent authority.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.
Pronounced : 09-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President ( Amarjeet Paul) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member |
