PER:
Nidhi Verma, Member
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the opposite party No. 1 is manager of the Indusind Bank and opposite party No. 2 is M.D. of Bank having its registered office. The complainant has taken vehicle loan for Bolero Camper bearing Registration No. PB46-M-9069, vide Loan No. PJT00006L to be paid in equal installments. The complainant was paying the installments regularly and due to some difficulties the account became irregular and amount of Rs. 44,143/- became due and the bank never approached for the clearance of the amount outstanding and present the security cheque lying with the bank by filling the excess amount in the cheque as Rs. 49,360/-, thereafter, the case was lodged in the Court u/s 138 N.I. Act, which is clear from the case proceedings. Meanwhile, the complainant approached the bank and cleared the outstanding and the bank issued the NOC on 24.4.2018. The bank officials did not disclose the complainant regarding the pendency of the case at the time of the issuing the NOC and while receiving the full and final payment also. The bank official even did not inform the Hon’ble Court regarding the clearance of the dues also hence the complainant was declared proclaimed person in the case filed by the Hon’ble Court on 13.3.2019 and thereafter, FIR No. 287 dated 11.9.2019 under Section 174-A was also registered at P.S. Sadar Tarn Taran. Thereafter, the complainant got bail in both the matters by the court and informed the court regarding the issuance of the NOC and thereafter he was acquitted by the court on 6.2.2020. When the complainant contacted the bank they refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party many times regarding his claim but the opposite party lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other. Due to negligence of the opposite party, the complainant has been involved in a criminal case and has to engage the counsel and got the bail. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:-
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation and for providing deficient services as well as Rs. 45,000/- litigation expenses for causing harassment to the complainant in the interest of justice.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, NOC Ex. C-2, Complaint U/s 138 N.I. Act, P.O. order Ex. C-4, FIR No. 287 Ex. C-5, Acquittal order Ex. C-6.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is just an abuse on the process of law as the same is just file in order to exert pressure on the replying opposite party. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conducts as he has not come to the commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the material facts from this commission. The present complaint is devoid of any cause of action. The complainant cannot take advantage of his wrongs. The complainant is an intentional and habitual defaulter and because of the default the bank has started the legal recourse for recovering the defaulted amount and has filed the complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act and the law has taken its own recourse. As per the loan agreement executed in between the parties, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as the complainant is having only remedy with him is approaching the arbitrator under “The Arbitration and Conciliation Act” The complainant is not the consumer to the bank as per the Consumer Protection Act as the loan account of the complainant is closed and settled much before the filing of the present complaint. As such, the complainant is not having any locus standi to file the present complaint. The present complaint is beyond the period of limitation. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of legal executive as well as General Power of attorney holder of Bank Ex. OP2/1.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
4 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant has taken vehicle loan for Bolero Camper bearing Registration No. PB46-M-9069, vide Loan No. PJT00006L to be paid in equal installments. The complainant was paying the installments regularly and due to some difficulties the account became irregular and amount of Rs. 44,143/- became due and the bank never approached for the clearance of the amount outstanding and he further contended that present the security cheque lying with the bank by filing the excess amount in the cheque as Rs. 49,360/-, thereafter, the case was lodged in the Court u/s 138 N.I. Act, which is clear from the case proceedings. The complainant approached the bank and cleared the outstanding and the bank issued the NOC on 24.4.2018. He further contended that the bank officials did not disclose the complainant regarding the pendency of the case at the time of the issuing the NOC and while receiving the full and final payment also. The bank official even did not inform the Hon’ble Court regarding the clearance of the dues also hence the complainant was declared proclaimed person in the case filed by the Hon’ble Court on 13.3.2019 and thereafter, FIR No. 287 dated 11.9.2019 under Section 174-A was also registered at P.S. Sadar Tarn Taran. He further contended that thereafter, the complainant got bail in both the matters by the court and informed the court regarding the issuance of the NOC and thereafter he was acquitted by the court on 6.2.2020. When the complainant contacted the bank they refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party many times regarding his claim but the opposite party lingered on the matter on one false pretext or the other. Due to negligence of the opposite party, the complainant has been involved in a criminal case and has to engage the counsel and got the bail and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the present complaint is just an abuse on the process of law as the same is just file in order to exert pressure on the replying opposite party. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conducts as he has not come to the commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the material facts from this commission. The present complaint is devoid of any cause of action. The complainant cannot take advantage of his wrongs. He further contended that the complainant is an intentional and habitual defaulter and because of the default the bank has started the legal recourse for recovering the defaulted amount and has filed the complaint U/s 138 of N.I. Act and the law has taken its own recourse. As per the loan agreement executed in between the parties, this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as the complainant is having only remedy with him is approaching the arbitrator under “The Arbitration and Conciliation Act” The complainant is not the consumer to the bank as per the Consumer Protection Act as the loan account of the complainant is closed and settled much before the filing of the present complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
6 From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the point involved in the present case is that the vehicle in question is financed with the opposite parties from whom the complainant has got sanctioned a loan and a hire purchase agreement was executed between complainant as such the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party . Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Vikas Nanda & Ors. 2011(2) CPC 217 of the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it has been held that as vehicle was purchased under a hire purchase agreement, complainant was not a consumer . Further reliance has been placed upon Parmeswari W/o Ramakrishnana Vs. The General Manager, V.S.T. Service Station, The Branch Manager, Tata Finance Limited and the United India Insurance Company 2010(2) CPC 164 (NC) of the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that in the case of Hire purchase agreement, the complainant does not become a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
7 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit and substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
16.05.2024
