DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 109 of 3.4.2008 Decided on : 18.7.2008 <br /> <br /> Deepak Monga Proprietor M/s. Deepak Tea Corporation, Street Prince Pubic School, Goniana Mandi. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Manager, Tata Finance Ltd., SCO 123, 3rd Floor, Ferozepur Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.<br /> 2.Director, Tata Finance Ltd., Bezzola Complex, Ist Floor, V.N Purav Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400071.<br /> 3.Manager, Tata Finance Ltd., Near Sweet Millan Hotel, G.T Road, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties: Sh. H.S Dhillon, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for his unnecessary harassment and mental tension.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased Tata Indica Diesel Car bearing registration No. Pb-03J-1944. It was got financed from the opposite parties vide Contract No. Car-277572. Loan amount was repayable in 60 instalments as per repayment schedule. All the instalments were paid well in time. Amount of last instalment was deposited on 5.7.2006. Despite this, No Due Certificate and Hypothecation Release Letter have not been released despite his repeated requests. These documents are also required by District Transport Officer. Act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Legal notice dated 31.8.2007 was got served by him upon the opposite parties through his counsel, the reply of which has not been sent. Instead they have got issued notice dated 13.9.2007 through law firm Walia & Associates making demand of Rs.169/- alleging the same to be outstanding. Even though this amount was not due, he has deposited a sum of Rs.170/- under protest. Although he has deposited this amount, two more notices dated 15.10.2007 and 16.11.2007 have been issued by the opposite parties raising demand of Rs.169/- in each of them. Demand is illegal and without any basis.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking objections that complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it as no cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction; complainant is not consumer as vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and it has been registered in the name of the company owned by the complainant. Complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Deepak Tea Corporation which deals in various commercial activities, the turnover of which is several lacs. Even otherwise, complainant is not consumer in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission; period of hire concluded on 5.7.2006 and option to purchase the vehicle as per condition No. 19 of the agreement was to be exercised by the complainant after payment of entire amount due but till date, he did not exercise the option nor did pay the amount payable by him; he is in unauthorised possession of the vehicle and as such, he is liable to pay damages as per condition No. 21 of the agreement; complaint pertains to accounts and as such, this Forum is not competent authority to take accounts and adjudicate the matter. Dispute if any, out of contractual relationship does not fall within the purview of the Act. They admit that loan amount was repayable in 60 monthly instalments. One cheque sent by the complainant was lost in transit. Complainant was offered waiver charges liability in this regard. He had requested for renewal of insurance and had given post dated cheque. Accordingly, insurance was renewed for the period from 9.8.2003 to 8.8.2004. A sum of Rs. 9,769/- was incurred. He is liable to reimburse the expenses. Inter-alia, their plea is that he is not entitled to No Objection Certificate without payment of the dues under the agreement. They admit that legal notice was received. A sum of Rs.170/- sent by the complainant has been adjusted towards part of expenses of insurance. Rest of the amount is still due. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Deepak Monga complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopies of letters dated 27.9.2007, 2.7.2002, 14.9.2001, 26.6.2003, 13.9.2007, 27.9.2007, 15.10.2007, 16.11.2007, 27.9.2007 (Ex.C.2, Ex.C.3,Ex.C.10, Ex.C.16, Ex.C.20, Ex.C.22, Ex.C.23 & Ex.C.25) respectively; photocopy of cover note (Ex.C.4), photocopy of policy (Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.7), photocopy of Certificate of Insurance (Ex.C.8),photocopy of registration certificate (Ex.C.9), photocopy of repayment schedule (Ex.C.11), photocopy of acknowledgement (Ex.C.12), photocopy of account statement (Ex.C.13), photocopies of ledgers (Ex.C.14 & Ex.C.24), photocopy of demand draft (Ex.C.15), photocopy of letter (Ex.C.17), photocopy of legal notice dated 31.8.2007 (Ex.C.18), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.19) and photocopy of receipt dated 27.9.2007 (Ex.C.21).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on photocopy of Agreement (Ex.R.1), photocopy of policy (Ex.R.2), photocopy of Cardex-I (Contract details) (Ex.R.3), photocopy of Cardex-II(Repayments)(Ex.R.4), photocopy of statement regarding rejected receipts (Ex.R.5), photocopy of statement regarding expense details (Ex.R.6) and photocopy of Cardex-VIII (Insurance details) (Ex.R.7).<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant is merely a hirer/bailee of the vehicle under the Hire Purchase Agreement and as such, he is not consumer due to which complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. <br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar learned counsel for the complainant submitted that mere fact that Tata Indica A.C Diesel car purchased by the complainant was got financed from the opposite parties vide Contract No. Car-277572 is no ground to hold that he is not consumer, particularly when he has deposited the amount of all the instalments as per repayment schedule and No Due Certificate is not being issued. <br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments. Factum of financing of the car by the complainant with the opposite parties vide Contract No. Car-277572 is not in dispute. Copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement is Ex.R.1. Complainant alleges that he has made payment of the amount of all the 60 instalments of loan as per repayment schedule. Opposite parties had got issued notice, copy of which is Ex.C.20, on 13.9.2007 alleging that a sum of Rs.169/- is still due. This amount was deposited by the complainant under protest as is evident from the receipt, copy of which is Ex.C.21. Opposite parties sent other notices dated 15.10.2007 and 16.11.2007 through their counsel Walia & Associates, copies of which are Ex.C.22 ad Ex.C.23, in which a sum of Rs. 169/- has been shown due. To the contrary, opposite parties allege that some amount is still outstanding towards the complainant. Hire Purchase Agreement has been signed by the complainant as well as on behalf of the opposite parties. Its clause No. 19-A is that if the hirer shall duly pay the hire charges and perform and observe all the terms and conditions of this Agreement the Vehicle shall at the option of the Hirer becomes Hirer's absolute property but until such payments, terms and conditions as aforesaid have been made performed and observed, the vehicle shall remain the property of the Owners. The Hirer shall also have the option of purchasing the vehicle at any time during the currency of this Agreement by paying in one lumpsum the balance of all the hire charges and other sums due under this Agreement thereto pertaining to the Vehicle. In these circumstances, when matter relates to settlement of accounts it should be adjudicated by the civil court. Moreover, under Hire purchase transactions as is in this case, financier does not render any service within the meaning of the Act. As per agreement, opposite Tata Finance Ltd. is the owner of the vehicle whereas complainant is the hirer. In view of this, complainant remained in the eyes of law a hirer of the car and not its purchaser. Hence, it cannot be said that he has hired the services of the opposite parties. Accordingly, he is not consumer. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the authority Ram Deshlahara VS. Magma Leasing Ltd.-III(2006)CPJ-247(N.C) and Tata Finance Limited Vs. Marjan Hossan & Ors.-Revision Petition No 367 of 1998 decided on 13.2.2003.<br /> 10. In view of what has been discussed above, merits of the complaint are not being touched since complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. The same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> 11. Before parting with this order, it is observed that complainant is at liberty to pursue his remedy before any other Forum/Court, if so advised and permitted by law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 18.7.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />