This is a complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant with the allegation that he had purchased  a vehicle  in the month of March, 2018  financed by opp.party, Mahindra and Mahindra  Finance Service Ltd. fixing  a E.M.I. of Rs.13,720/-. It is mentioned  in the petition that E.M.I. was regularly paid without default, but during covid situation, the business of the complainant was collapsed and the complainant could not paid E.M.I. regularly . The complainant became a defaulter    from the month of Nov.2021 to Jan.2022.

              In the complaint petition the complainant narrated how his business was effected during covid situation and he became a defaulter in payment of E.M.I. and he approached the opp.party no. 2 where he was assured  that his request letter be sent to opp.party no.1 , but no result came out. It is a matter relating to E.M.I. moratorium  as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.. But for default of the payment  the vehicle of the complainant was    repossessed by the op.party no. 2 from the driver of the complainant .

            The complainant, thereafter,  sent the statement of E.M.I. in which, he was a defaulter of Nov.2021 to Jan.2022 and same was sent to opp.party no. 2  and requested  for allowing E.M.I. moratorium and to allow time to pay his outstanding E.M.I.. Thereafter, another 6 months time was given verbally from the month of Feb.2022 to July 2022  to pay the dues  along with interest .

           But when the complainant came to make the payment in the month of  July 2022 he came to know that the vehicle was sold to another person by the opp.party no.2 without informing the complainant  and without getting  a no objection certificate from him and now, the said vehicle was running  by third party. It is further submitted that vehicle is in the name of the complainant  and it is running  by another person and no action was taken by the opp.party no. 2.

          Under the above fact and circumstances the complainant came out with the present complaint stating that op.party have failed to settle the bonafide claim of the complainant on different pretext. Therefore, the case has been filed under Consumer Protection Act claiming  altogether  Rs.9,30,000/- as compensation  and damages etc.

        We have heard  learned counsel for the complainant as per Consumer Protection Act.2019. We have considered the definition of Consumer where it read as under

Section (7) “Consumer” means  any person who-

i)“Buys any goods for a consideration  which  has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised , or under any system of deferred  payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such  goods for consideration paid or promised  or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such  use is made with the approval of such  person, but  does not include a person who obtains such  goods for resale or for any commercial purpose : or

ii)Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been  paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such  service  other than  the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid  or promised, or  partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but  does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. “ 

          Apparently,  the matter of dispute  involved,  is a contractual agreement  and business matter which requires proper judicial  intervention in the proper forum. The present dispute is not relating  to any consumer law,  as there is no question  of deficiency of service or allegation of any  sale of goods or unfair trade practice . As we know that financial support  by any company or organization for purchasing car ect., involves documents including  agreements between  the parties  etc. In such  case the  claim by  either party to  such transaction which need to be determined  between the parties  on the basis of terms and condition of the documents,  is a dispute of civil nature.

         As such, this is not a subject  to be intervened by this commission . It  requires proper judicial adjudication.  Hence,  we do not found any merit  in the present petition and  thereby,   is not admitted  and   rejected.