PER:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant purchased the Mahindra Supro Mini Truck BS4, bearing registration No. PB02-DF-4548, Engine No. H6H30286 and Chassis No. MA1FN2VARH6H22385 from opposite party No. 1 on 30^th October 2017 for a sum of Rs.4,24,000/- and the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance money at the time of purchasing the same to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 got financed the above said Truck from opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,74,000/- on the same day when it was purchased by the complainant. The said finance amount has to be returned by the complainant within period of four years to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has entered in to contract with the complainant at the time of financing the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- for the purchase of above said Mini Truck on 30^th October 2017 i.e. at the time of purchasing the above said Mini Truck from opposite party No.1. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the opposite parties have included R.C. charges, Road Tax, Insurance Charges etc. in the loan amount of Rs. 3,74,000/- and as per the above said contract, the complainant has to pay the above said loan amount of Rs. 3,74,000/- in equal installments for a period of 4 years and each monthly installment consists of Rs. 11,200/-. The complainant got insured the above said Mini Truck vide insurance policy No. 3003/138515809/00/000 from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited through opposite party No. 1 which is valid from October 30, 2017 to October 29, 2018. Thus the complainant is consumer u/s (1) (d) (ii) (iii) of the consumer Protection Act as amended up to date and hence is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite party No. 1 got three blank cheques from the complainant of Central Cooperative Bank Branch Fattu Dhinga District Kapurthala bearing account No. 101234001100611 as security at the time of financing the above said Mini Truck from the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has paid four installments i.e. each installment Rs. 11,200/- per month as per the terms and conditions of the above said contract which was executed between the complainant and opposite party No.2 and the complainant has paid Rs. 44,800/- out of above said loan amount to the opposite party No. 1 in the presence of Sukhjinder Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of village Jhander Mahapurkha Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran but the opposite party No. 2 has given only one receipt to the complainant and has not given/ issued the remaining three receipts out of the loan amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2  as per the repeated requests made by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 and the complainant alongwith above said Sukhjinder Singh approached the opposite party No.2  and demanded the receipts regarding the payment of installments but the opposite party No. 2 linger on the matter on one or the other pretext and at last, the opposite party No. 2 has refused to give receipts of three installments which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.2  since a week ago. The complainant has always willing to pay the remaining installments as per the terms and conditions of the above said contract but the opposite party No. 2 has not given the receipts regarding installments which was already paid by the complainant to the opposite parties and further opposite parties are threatening to detain the above said mini truck forcibly and illegally with the help of local police of which they have no legal right to do so. The livelihood of the family of the complainant depends upon the business of carrying goods on the said financed truck. The complainant has prayed the following reliefs:-

1. The opposite parties are directed to issue the receipts of three installments which was already paid by the complainant to the opposite parties as the complainant is ready to pay the remaining installments as per the terms and conditions of the above said contract and further opposite parties are directed not to detain the above said financed Mini Truck forcibly and illegally forever.
2. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 50,000/- for mental torture, harassment, agony and financial loss which he has suffered because of wrongful act of opposite parties.
3. The complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses and counsel fee amounting to Rs. 15,000/-
4. Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to be also awarded in the interest of justice and equity.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A and CW2/A, Self attested copy of receipt regarding payment of financed amount Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of RC Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of certificate of exemption Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of insurance policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ex. C-5, Attested affidavit of witness namely Sukhjinder Singh son of Sucha Singh resident of village Jhander Mahapurkha Tehsil Khadoor Sahib District Tarn Taran Ex. C-6.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that neither there is any branch of Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. at Sarhali Road Tarn Taran nor the opposite party Dilbag Singh is manager/ employee of Mohindra & Mohindra Ltd. Infact Dilbag Singh is manager of Sangam Auto Mobiles which is a dealership concern and it only engaged in selling of the vehicles. The opposite party Dilbag Singh has sold the vehicle to the complainant which was duly financed by Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. at the instance of complainant. The opposite party only received down payment from the complainant and issued a receipt, thereafter, the remaining payment was received by Sangam Automobiles from Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. and opposite party No. 1 is in no way concerned with Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is merely an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant misleading this Commission by pleadings wrong facts against the opposite party No.1. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission. This commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The opposite party No. 1 has been falsely implicated through Dilbag Singh in order to file the present complaint within the jurisdiction of this commission as such,the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with score alone. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant did not purchase the Mohindra Supro Mini Truck as alleged from Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. Infact the above said vehicle has been purchased from Sangam Automobiles and it was got financed by Mohindra and Mohindra Ltd. at the instance of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 never threatened the complainant to detain the above said vehicle. No alleged request was ever made to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record affidavit of opposite party No.1  Ex. OP1/1, Photostat copy of OTF dated 22.8.2017 of complainant Manjit Singh duly signed by complainant and sales consulted Ex. OP1/2.

3        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint in the present form is not legally maintainable. The complainant purchased the truck, which is a commercial vehicle, as such, considering the nature of the vehicle and its utility by the complainant, the complainant is not consumer. The complainant is using the same for commercial purpose. The complainant has not come before this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the notice of this commission. The complaint is filed with malafide intention to delay the payment of the due amount along with interest and to delay the recovery of the amount, which is public exchequer, by due process of law by the opposite party. The complainant raised loan to the tune of Rs. 3,79,000/- on 15.11.2017 against vehicle on which financial charges of Rs. 1,55,720/- were added and total agreement for sum of Rs. 5,34,720/- was executed by the complainant in favour of complainant containing all the terms and conditions of loan, interest and repayments. The loan was repayable in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 11,140/-. The complainant deposited only Rs. 38,930/- against four installments of Rs. 11,140/- each for which receipts were issued to the complainant as per routine. Rs. 60/- were paid towards late payment charges as per agreement and penal interest as account of complainant from very inception was running irregular. From the inception of loan account i.e. 15.11.2017 up to filing of present written version, the complainant has deposited only Rs. 38,990/-. The present loan agreement is an arbitration agreement and in continuance of the same, the arbitration proceedings have also been initiated against the complainant and till date the complainant has not joined the said proceedings which is the appropriate forum for the complainant to express himself. As per law, this commission lacks jurisdiction to try the present grouse of the complainant. The present complaint is based on flimsy and concocted grounds as each and every penny deposited by the complainant is reflecting in the account statement and bears the date of depositing the same which is prior to filing of the present complaint. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party as the relation between the complainant and the opposite party is of borrower and lender rather than the customer and service provider. As per the ratio of various judicial pronouncements, the complainant is not consumer in present scenario and on this ground alone the complaint merits dismissal. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant purchased the Mohindra Supro Mini Truck 854 bearing registration No. PB02-DF-4548 from the opposite parties. The total loan advanced to the complainant was Rs. 3,79,000/- on 15.11.2017 for which the complainant executed loan documents. The loan amount alongwith interest was repayable in 48 months. The complainant is loanee as such, he is not covered under Consumer Protection Act. There is arbitration clause in the loan contract, as such, the complainant has equitable remedy to approach the arbitrator.  The complainant has not given the cheque numbers of alleged three security cheques. The complainant is defaulter and has not deposited any money in loan account even after filing of the complaint. The opposite party has legal right to recover the entire due amount and repossession the hypothecated vehicle in due process of law. The opposite party No. 2 is suffering at the hands of the complainant for not depositing of the loan installments. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Anurag Sharma Ex. OP1/A, document Ex. OP1.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.

5        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant got financed Mahindra Supro Mini Truck BS4 bearing registration No. PB-02-DF-4548 from the opposite party No.2. But the complainant alleged that he has got financed the truck for Rs. 3,74,000/-, but the opposite parties have alleged that the complainant got financed the above said truck for Rs. 3,79,000/-.  The complainant has not placed on record any document to support his version that the above said truck was got financed to the tune of Rs. 3,74,000/-. On the other hands, to prove their version, the opposite parties have placed on record one document on record Ex. OP1/2 in which loan amount has been written as 3,79,000/- and same is duly signed by the complainant. As such, it is proved on record that the complainant has got financed his vehicle to the tune of Rs. 3,79,000/- .

6        In the complaint the complainant has alleged that he has made the payment of four installments but the opposite parties have issued receipt regarding the payment of only one installment. The opposite party No. 2 in its written version has stated that the complainant has deposited only Rs. 38,930/- against four installments for which receipts were issued to the complainant as per routine, Rs. 60/- were paid towards late payment charges as per agreement and penal interest as account of the complainant from very inception was running irregular.  The opposite party No. 2 has placed on record one document Ex. OP-1 in which the opposite parties have shown that the opposite party No. 2 has received the installments i.e. Rs. 11,200/- on 23.12.2017, Rs. 11,140/- on 5.1.2018, Rs. 11,150/- on 8.3.2018 and Rs. 5,500/- on 11.4.2018 and the opposite party No. 2 has also mentioned receipt Numbers on Ex. OP/1. As such, as per version of the complainant,  he has paid 4 installments to the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 has deposited the same which is duly proved on record vide Ex. OP/1. However, the complainant has deposited only 5,500/- i.e. less amount of fourth installment. The version of the complainant that the opposite parties have not issued any receipts of three installments to him is not admitted because as per schedule the second installment was to be deposited on 5.1.2018, which was paid on 5.1.2018 in time, third installment was to be paid on 5.2.2018 which was paid on 8.3.2018 and fourth installment was to be paid on 5.3.2018 and part amount Rs. 5,500/- has been paid by him on 11.4.2018. If the opposite parties have not issued him receipt of 2^nd and 3^rd installment, then what action was taken by him, the complainant has not placed on record any application, e-mail, complaint etc. on record regarding non-issuing of receipts of installments as alleged in the complaint and by simply alleging that he has made the payment of installments but the opposite parties have not issued the receipts of the same is not sufficient. Moreover, in the statement of account the payment which have been received from the complainant have been shown by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have deducted the amount from the loan account of complainant.  

7        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that this commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain this case as the complainant has entered in to loan agreement with the opposite parties qua the vehicle in question. 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. This complaint also falls within the ambit of above mentioned settled law. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that fate of this complaint would be same and liable to be dismissed.

8        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 and due to COVID-19. 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.

08.03.2022