Complaint Case No. CC/16/126 |
| | 1. PRALHAD S/O AMBIKAPRASAD SHARMA | RAMNATH BUILDING,NEAR SINDHI GURUSANGAT,SADAR,NAGPUR-440001 | NAGPUR | MAHARASHTRA |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD | OFFICE AT 12A-10,13TH FLOOR,PARINEE CRESCENZO,C-28 AND C-39,G-BLOCK,BEHIND MCA ,BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,BANDRA(EAST)MUMBAI-400051 | NAGPUR | MAHARASHTRA | 2. THE MANAGER,INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD | NAGPUR BRANCH HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BESIDES CHAVAN TRADERS,NEAR BATUKBHAI JEWELERS,DHARAMPETH,NAGPUR-440010 | NAGPUR | MAHARASHTRA |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | (Delivered on 5/12/2016) Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member - This complaint is filed under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs.
- Grant relief to the complainant by directing the opponents (for short OP Nos. 1 and 2) to grant compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- as specified in Para Nos. 23 to 27 of the complaint, with interest till realization of said amount by the complainant.
- Direct the opponents to restore the possession of the tanker bearing No. RTO Registration No. MH-04-DD-6697 to the complainant in the same condition in which it was illegally taken by them on 1/9/2016.
- Grant interim relief in terms of clause (b) above.
- Saddle cost of the complaint proceedings on the opponents.
- The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is as under.
- The complainant is engaged in business of owning and running petrol pump and he owns commercial vehicles used for transportation of petroleum products by petroleum company namely Indian Oil Corporation, on contract basis. He is a highly qualified person having obtained B. Tech. in Chemical Engineering from prestigious institute of Nagpur. The complainant is doing the aforesaid business of transport since last 25 years. The Indian Oil Corporation requires transporter to own at least five tanker. The complainant owned two petroleum tankers and he was in need of three more petroleum tankers in order to qualify for the tender issued by Indian Oil Corporation. The complainant bought two tankers in June 2015 in Mumbai and got them partly financed from Company. The complainant then needed one more tanker to complete his tally before the date of the tender. Hence he purchased a tanker in Mumbai again and got it partly financed by OP No. 1 through OP No. 2. He got transferred that vehicle in his name in the record of RTO Nagpur. The finance of Rs. 4,09,000/- was provided by OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 for purchasing the aforesaid vehicle. The complainant was paying installments from his other earning and by liquidating his other assets as he could not get contract for the current period from Indian Oil Corporation.
- However on 1/9/2016, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 under the pretext of inspection of aforesaid vehicle due to irregularity in payment of installment, took the vehicle in their possession and played upon the complainant and sold that vehicle without giving any information to him. The complainant thereafter got messages on his cell phone on 29/9/2016 and 30/09/2016 that his vehicle has been sold for Rs. 2,50,000/-. The value of that vehicle was of Rs. 6,50,000/-. The opponents are now threatening the complainant for recovery of outstanding amount from him. Thus, the aforesaid action of the opponents is against the settle law and hence this complaint is filed against the opponents for the aforesaid reliefs. It is also alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of definition of consumer given under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
- We have heard learned advocate of the complainant on the point of maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. The learned advocate of the complainant referred to the provisions of section of 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act and submitted that as per explanation appended to the said section, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Thus according to him, the averment made in the complaint is sufficient to show that the complainant had purchased the tanker by obtaining finance from OP No. 1 though OP No. 2 for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment and the same is covered under the aforesaid explanation and hence complaint before this Commission is maintainable.
- However we find that it is nowhere specifically pleaded by the complainant that he purchased the tanker in question by obtaining finance from the opponent for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. On the contrary, careful reading of entire complaint shows that the complainant is engaged in a business of owning and running a petrol pump and he owns commercial vehicles for transportation of petroleum products. He is a well qualified person holding degree as B.Tech. in Chemical Engineering. He owned as much as five tankers at a time for the business of transportation of petroleum products besides owning and running petrol pump. The Para No. 27 of the complaint shows the following averment.
“The damages sought for are not excessive as the complainant is otherwise qualified bidder and is in the business of transport of petroleum products for past 25 years or so. If all the tankers are employed in the transport of such products, each tanker earns him an income in the range of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month by any estimate and thus his five tankers have capacity to earn an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per month, if he engages his tankers in the transport of petroleum to any company.”. - Thus, the income of the complainant assessed by him is Rs. 2,00,000/- to 2,50,000/- per month from the five tankers. Therefore, we find that considering such a expected huge income of the complainant from his five tankers under a business of transportation only, it cannot be said that he had obtained finance from the opponents for purchasing one of the tanker simply for the purposes of maintaining his livelihood by means of self employment. It is also not case of the complainant that he himself was driving the said tanker as a means of earning of his livelihood by way of self employment.
- Moreover we find that the complainant also runs a petrol pump besides doing the transportation of petroleum product on contract basis. Thus, considering such a huge income of complainant by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the complainant had obtained finance from OPs for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. On the contrary, we find from above discussed facts and circumstances that the finance was obtained by the complainant from the opponents purely for commercial purpose and earning huge income and thus their services were availed by the complainant purely for commercial purpose. He is thus excluded from the definition of Consumer as given under Section 2 (1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is not maintainable before us. Complainant is excluded from definition of consumer.
ORDER - The complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission.
- The complainant is at liberty to approach Civil Court as per law for the purpose of seeking redressal of his grievance in the matter of present case.
- Copy of the order be furnished to the complainant, free of cost.
| |