Order no.  4, dt. 19.12.2022

This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in respect of the application filed by the op/ applicant on the ground that this case is not maintainable as this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

This matter has been contested by complainant/ op by filing W/O. Heard and considered submission of both sides. The argument highlighted by the applicant side and op side has been heard in full.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side that the complainant applied for financial assistance for purchasing several vehicles from the applicant side and by executing agreement the applicants granted loan to the complainant/ op. It is further argued that the complainant/ op purchased the said vehicles for commercial purpose and so this case is not maintainable.

On the other hand the op/ complainant side pointed out that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle for earning his livelihood and the op has practiced fraud and has forcibly taken away some of his vehicles by violating terms and conditions. it is also pointed out by the complainant side that maximum portion of the loan has been paid by the complainant but ops of C.C. case no. 108 of 2022 already have forcibly taken away some of the vehicle of the complainant. According to the argument of the complainant side without taking evidence it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the complainant has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose or not?

This District Commission for the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision over the issue as to whether this case is maintainable or not and whether this District Commission has jurisdiction or not, has scanned the materials of the case record and finds that one loan agreement was executed in between complainant and ops in the matter of providing financial assistance for purchasing several vehicles by the complainant. It is admitted fact that one loan agreement was executed in between the complainant and ops and in the said loan agreement the pecuniary jurisdiction has been vested to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. But facts remains that this matter has totally been suppressed by the this complainant of complaint case and ops of this M.A. case. When parties of this case by executing agreement has decided and vested the jurisdiction to Debt Recovery Tribunal, this case is not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

On close examination of the material of the case record it appears that the complainant/ op has taken the financial assistance from applicant/ op company for purchasing several vehicles. In this regard it is the case of the complainant side that the complainant  has purchased the vehicles for earning livelihood. But fact remains that on close examination of this case as well as other complaint cases it appears that the complainant/ op, Md. Samsuddin has initiated many cases in respect of several vehicles. This matter is clearly indicating that complainant has purchased several vehicles for business purpose not for personal use. In this regard it is the settled principle of law that to come within the meaning of “consumer” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant shall have to establish that services were availed exclusively for purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. This legal principle has been observed by Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank and it is reported in II (2022) CPJ 9 (SC). Similar legal principle has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kohli and another vs. M/S Pureearth Infrastructure Ltd.  in civil appeal no. 9004-9005 of 2018. In this instant case the complainant has miserably failed to prove that he has purchased several vehicles by taking loans from ops (who is the applicant of this M.A. case) for earning livelihood.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the C.C. case  no. 108 o f2022 is not maintainable in the eye of law and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try this case.

In the result it is accordingly,

Ordered

that this M.A. case no. 57 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest.

It is held that C.C. case no. 108 of 2022 is not maintainable and this District Commission has no jurisdiction to try it and so the C.C. case is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to costs.