In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 135 / 2009.
1) Mr. Gaya Prasad,
Vill. Bagpura, P.O. Balisai, P.S. Ramnagar, Purba Medinipur. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Citigroup Centre, Plot No. C61, ‘G’ Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex.
Bandra(E), Mimbai-400051.
India Service through the
Branch Manager, M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.,
Metro Plaza, 7th Floor, Ho Chi Min Sarani, Kolkata-700071.
2) The Branch Manager, M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd.,
Metro Plaza, 7th Floor, Ho Chi Min Sarani, Kolkata-700071 ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 34 Dated 08/06/2012
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Mr. Gaya Prasad against the o.ps. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant took a loan from o.ps. on 17.5.04 for purchasing a vehicle amounting to Rs.2,97,000/- payable at 45 installments w.e.f. 17.6.04 with EMI of Rs.8740/-. Complainant paid all installments and lastly paid on 8.2.08 on the schedule date. Thereafter, complainant sent a letter to o.ps. to issue ‘no due certificate’ and to return the original documents of insurance and blue book of the vehicle and also to return four blank cheques given to o.ps. on 17.5.04. But o.ps. did not pay heed to the request of complainant. hence, complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum. Due to this deficiency in service of the o.ps., complainant has to suffer serious mental agony and harassment and complainant has prayed for relief as mentioned in the complaint petition.
O.p. no.1 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and accordingly, matter was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. O.p. no.1 has raised a point in para 4(a) of w/v on affidavit that complainant purchased a vehicle for commercial purpose viz. Mahindra and Mihindra PICUP.
It appears form the record that complainant in complaint and evidence has not mentioned that the vehicle in question was purchased for personal purpose or for business purpose which is only for his self-employment. Moreover, complainant has not filed a scrap of paper to establish the aforesaid contention and even on the date of hearing ld. counsel for complainant could not satisfy that the vehicle in question was purchased for personal use or for self-employment.
As per the definition of ‘consumer’ in the C.P. Act u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) “Consumer means any person ………….. but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the instant case the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the scope and ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’ u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant case.
Hence, ordered,
That the instant case of the complainant stands disposed of since this Forum is not competent enough to adjudicate the matter without cost. The complainant is at liberty to proceed with the case on self-same cause of action before Appropriate Forum.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______ ______Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
