Complainant Satnam Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to make payment of down payment and installments with interest @ 25% per annum alongwith Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony alongwith litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he took loan facility from the opposite party no.1 for the purchase of the vehicle TATA LPX 2518 BS-III bearing Registration No.PB-06-V-1183 vide Contract No.PJJ0308D dated 30.11.2012 to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment. The opposite party no.1 agreed to provide the finance amount of Rs.23,00,000/-. He agreed the terms and conditions of the opposite party no.1. The period of contract starts from 30.11.2012 which will be expired on 21.4.2017. He paid down payment to the opposite parties at the start of the contract as demanded by the opposite party no.1 and he agreed to pay the remaining amount in installment. Even the vehicle was insured with M/s.Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited from the start of contract for that also as the opposite party no.1 Bank has tie up with the opposite party no.3. He has further pleaded that he being faithful, paid the installments on time with the hope that the opposite party no.1 will enter the same in his account, so that true record can be supplied to him at any moment of time. Sometimes, the opposite party no.2 who is official of the opposite party no.1 also used to visit his house to collect the installment as he is incharge of the said area and acts as Bridge between him and his Bank. But unfortunately his vehicle was got stolen on 23.11.2013 in the area of Police Station Dinanagar. He immediately got registered F.I.R. No.300 dated 23.11.2013 under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Dinanagar through his Driver Joginder Singh son of Sh.Gurnam Singh. He without wasting single minute informed the opposite parties no.1 and 2 as well as to the opposite party no.3. The officials of the Insurance Company and the opposite party no.1 made inquiry and investigation of the whole matter at their own level. Ultimately, the Insurance Company found his claim to be genuine, so they agreed to pay the full value of the vehicle insured and as such the finance company transferred the value of the vehicle amounting to Rs.25,63,500/- in the Account of Bank on 31.8.2015 to compensate the loss suffered by him. When he came to know that value of the vehicle has been transferred in the account of the opposite party Bank by the Insurance company, he went to the opposite party as he wants to further continue the contract and moreover the loss has been compensated. But the opposite parties were not ready to hear him in any manner. A legal notice was also issued to the opposite party no.1 calling upon to make the payment of down payment and installments with interest @ 25% alongwith compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The said legal notice was duly acknowledged but the opposite parties have not given any reply to the said notice. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that this Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint against the opposite parties no.1 & 2, as the loan agreement was executed at Jalandhar, payment was made at Jalandhar, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed; the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint  against the opposite party no.1 & 2; the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties; the complaint is barred by limitation; the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant has entered into loan agreement with the opposite party no.1 on 30.11.2012 vide contract No.PJJ00308D at Jalandhar for the purchase of Tata LPK2518 vehicle and as per loan agreement executed between the parties the finance amount is Rs.23,00,000/-, finance charges is Rs.7,76,250/- total amounting to Rs.30,76,250/- which the complainant agreed to repay to the opposite party no.1 in 54 monthly installments w.e.f. 30.11.2012 to 21.4.2017. However, the complainant made a default in making monthly installments to the opposite party no.1 and further the vehicle in question has been stolen. However, insurance amount of Rs.25,63,500/- has been paid to the opposite party no.1 by the Insurance Company. However, as per statement of account of the complainant duly maintained by the opposite party no.1 in the ordinary course of business a sum of Rs.1,24,620.16 is still to be paid by the complainant to the opposite arty no.1. On merits, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was stolen and a FIR has been registered. The insurance amount of Rs.25,63,500/- has been transferred in the loan account of the complainant by the insurance company.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.        Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. Even as per complaint the allegations and relief has been claimed against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and not against the opposite party no.3. In the present complaint, the dispute is regarding the down payment and installments and the opposite parties have no link with this. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that the amount of claim paid, if any is subject to verification and is only as per terms and conditions of the policy.  The dispute is between the complainant and the Indusind Bank. The opposite party has no link with the dispute between the parties. The matter regarding installment and down payment is between them and opposite party has no link with it and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.        Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Jagdeep Singh Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhavik Bhardwaj attorney of M/s.Indusind Bank Ex.OP1,2/A and of Aayush Rai Hub Manager Ex.OP-1,2/4,  alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/3 and closed the evidence.

7.        Counsel for the opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashutosh Kumar, authorized signatory Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.

8.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties, arguments advanced by their respective learned counsels and have also purposefully perused the documents/evidence produced on record along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some gap evidence ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint. We find that the present dispute has prompted on account of the allegedly inappropriate and unjust appropriation of the insurance ‘theft-claim’ by the opposite party Bank upon its receipt from the OP3 insurers. We find that the complainant has entered into loan agreement with the OP 1 for the purchase of Tata LPK2518 and as per the loan agreement  Term Loan of Rs.23 Lac (with an EMI of Rs.58,040/-) was sanctioned by the OP1 Bank on 30.11.2012 to own the Tata LPX 2518 BS-III Truck costing Rs.27 Lac (plus). The complainant made default in making monthly installments to the OP 1. Somehow, the financed Truck was stolen on 23.11.2013 and subsequently its insurance claim to its full IDV of    Rs.25.65 Lac was paid (in ‘2’ equated halves, one on 25.06.2014 and other on 31.08.2015) by the OP3 insurers to the OP1 Bank (financers) who appropriated the same in the complainant’s Loan A/c that still exhibited an outstanding debit balance of Rs.1.24 Lac (plus).

9.       We find that both the contesting parties have duly put forth their own lengthy and elaborate calculations in line with their own interpretations of the terms of loan agreements and RBI guidelines etc., little realizing that ‘disputes’ pertaining to ‘Rendition & Settlement’ of accounts are not ‘consumer’ complaints and as such do not fall within the ambit and adjudicatory jurisdiction as bestowed by the benevolent statute namely: the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. We are strengthened in our above legal proposition by virtue of the judgment pronounced by honorable Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Appeal # 450/2004 titled: Ashok Leyland vs Himanshu S Thuma; duly referring therein the case titled: Manager, St. Marys Hire Purchase (P) Ltd., vs. N A Jose (1995) 3 CPJ 58 (NC); to finally settle the issue/interpretation of statutory law in question, here.

10.     In the light of the all above, we are not inclined to proceed ahead with the current adjudicatory pertaining to the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President     

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

August, 05 2016.                                                      Member.

*MK*