PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.06.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in RP No. 22/2014, vide which, while dismissing the said petition, the order dated 30.12.2013, passed by the Burdwan District Forum, saying that consumer case No. 157/2013 filed by the present respondent before that Forum was maintainable, was affirmed.  A notice of the said petition was sent to the respondent who refused to receive the same as per the report of the Postal Authorities and hence, he was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the consumer complaint No. 157/2013 was filed by the complainant/respondent before the District Forum saying that he purchased a second-hand truck, bearing No. WB37B 0857 for ₹8,80,000/- as a co-purchaser alongwith Kamlesh Sahani.  Both of them purchased the said truck for earning their livelihood by means of self-employment by raising finance from the petitioner company for a sum of ₹6,60,000/-.  The said vehicle is stated to have been repossessed by the petitioner company on the plea that the complainant failed to repay the instalments of loan in time.  It is stated in the complaint that on 03.07.2013, he received a letter from the OP company, saying that the vehicle had been sold in public auction and the sale proceeds had been adjusted against the total outstanding amount of the complaint.  In spite of that, a sum of ₹2,21,253/- was still payable by the complainant to the OP Company.  The complainant averred that the OPs were not entitled to receive any amount from him.  He filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the respondent to withdraw letter dated 03.07.2013 and also demanded a sum of ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony from them and a further sum of ₹50,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       The OP, Shriram Transport Finance Company filed an application before the District Forum, challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaint, saying that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle for commercial purpose and he was already the owner of another vehicle No. WB41B 5241.  It was also stated in the said application that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, they had referred the matter to an arbitrator and hence, the complaint was not maintainable. 

4.       The District Forum dismissed the miscellaneous application No. 15/2013 of the petitioner, saying that the complaint was maintainable before them, as section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provided an additional remedy to the consumer to get his grievance redressed.  The District Forum also held that there was no cogent evidence in support of the contention of the OP that the vehicle was purchased for a commercial purpose.  Accordingly, they held vide this order that the complainant was a consumer.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same by way of revision petition before the State Commission and the said petition, having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

5.       It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner company that the complainant was not covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the said vehicle had been purchased by him for a commercial purpose.  The Ld. Counsel stated that since the complainant was already in possession of one truck, it was obvious that the second truck was purchased for commercial purpose.  In this regard, the Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in FA No. 888/2013 decided on 04.03.2014, “Sri Jasobanta Narayan Ram Vs. Branch Manager, L&T Finance Limited”, saying that purchase of two trucks by the complainant in the said case was held to be a commercial purpose.  The Ld. Counsel has further drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Harshan Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.” [(2005) 7 SCC 791], saying that the order passed without jurisdiction was nullity in the eyes of law.

6.       I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.       In so far as the applicability of the Arbitration Clause is concerned, the matter has been discussed in many cases already decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission and it has been held that the pendency of proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, does not come in the way of proceedings undertaking under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It has been held in these judgments/orders that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provided an additional remedy to the complainants to seek redressal of their grievances.  The State Commission have rightly relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Fair Air Engineers Private Limited & Anr. vs. N.K. Modi” [(1996) (6) SCC 385], in this regard.  The contention of the consumer fora below that the consumer complaint in question can be adjudicated and decided, even when matter has been referred to an arbitrator are, therefore, in accordance with law and are upheld.

8.       In so far as the other contention of the petitioner whether the purchase of second tractor implies that the same was done for a commercial purpose and hence, the complainant is not a consumer, is concerned, the District Forum stated in their order dated 30.12.2013 that the OPs had not filed any cogent evidence in support of their contention that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.  The District Forum was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the complainant, in this case came under the category of consumer.

9.         Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below.  It is observed, however, that it shall be open to the petitioners to lead any further evidence before the District Forum during proceedings before them in support of their contention that the purchase of the vehicle was for a commercial purpose and hence the complainant did not come under the definition of consumer.  With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.