West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/130/2011

Smt. Putul Maity - Complainant(s)

Versus

L & T Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.130/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 10/07/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Singha.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S. Dutta.

                    Smt.  Putul Maity W/o-Tarun Maity of P.O.-Jhakra, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-

                    Paschim  Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. L & T  Finance Ltd., 3-B-Shakespere Sarani, Kolkata-700071
2. Branch Manager, L & T Finance Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, P.O.-Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist Paschim Medinipur…………………Ops.

        The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows:-

        The complainant obtained loan of Rs.12 lakhs for the purpose of purchase a Truck from the Ops.  The Registration No. of the Truck is WB-41E-4374. After the loan was taken and complainant got the Truck, she started her transport business and paid installments.  The said Truck met with an accident on 12/6/11.  The Ops and the Insurance Company was informed in writing about the accident.  After the accident the complainant failed to pay some installments for which on 20/10/11, the Ops. forcibly seized the truck.

      Thereafter, on 28/11/11 the complainant went to the office of the Ops. and expressed her intention to pay the dues but the complainant was driven out.  So, according to the complainant, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

      In the present case, complainant has prayed for return of the Truck, production of the loan document and also an order so that the Op. cannot sell out the truck.  The complainant also paid for compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the Ops.

      The Ops. contested the case by filing a W/O.  The specific contention of the Ops. were that the complainant the present case is not maintainable as the complainant does not come under the purview of within consumer.  The complainant owns two other vehicle bearing Nos. WB-29-7186 and WB-33A-6317. The Ops. contended that all the vehicles of the complainant including the vehicle in the present case are being used for commercial purpose and not for earning  livelihood of the complainant.  The Ops. also cited some decisions in the W/O in

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

support of their contentions that the prayer of the Op. cannot be entitled by this Forum.  Therefore, the Op. prayed for dismissal of the case.

     Now, we are to consider whether the complainant is claimant, claimant is entitled to get the relief as sought for.

Decisions with reasons

     At first, let us now considered whether the complainant comes within the purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The terms consumer has been defined in Section 2(d) (i) (ii). Explanation to this section provides that 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 employment.

     In the instant case, it has been clearly set out by the complainant in her application that after purchasing the Truck she started her transport business.  That the complainant owns a fleet of Trucks. It not denied.

    The Ops. in their W/O as mentioned the number of Trucks which belong to the complainant.  That has not been disputed by the complainant at the time of hearing of the case.  Therefore, it cannot be sustained that the complainant purchased the truck for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment.  Rather, it was purely for her business purpose.   We find substance in the contention of the Ops that in a case of hire purchase there was no element of service against the owner and, therefore, such complaint is not maintainable before a Consumer Court. The Truck in question was hire purchased by the complainant and she was doing transport business and the Truck in question was not being used solely for the purpose of earning the livelihood of the complainant by means of self employment.  Accordingly, we do not find that the complainant come within the purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

     Since it is found that the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of the C.P. Act 1986, the question of deficient service does not arise and the complainant is not entitled to get other reliefs as prayed for. 

                                    Hence

                                              ordered.

                                                            that the case be dismissed on contest.                      

Dic. & Corrected by me.

                                                                            

              

         President                            Member               Member                      President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur.