DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/107/2020

Date of Institution : 02.07.2020

Date of Decision : 27.10.2020

Balwinder Singh s/o Bant Singh resident of c/o Kulwinder Singh s/o Harpal Singh resident of Dhanaula Khurd, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab. …Complainant

Versus

1. M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd., Near AU Small Finance Bank Limited, 1st Floor, Near Darzian Wali Gali, College Road, Barnala-148101 District Barnala through its Branch Manager.

2. M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd., Plot No. 384, DVS Tower, R.K. Road, above Spice affair restaurant, Cheema Chowk, Near HP Petrol Pump, Ludhiana-141003 through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite Parties 

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Balwinder Singh has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (as amended up to date)  against M/s HDB Financial Services Limited, Barnala and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 for the finance of one Tralla (Bharat Benz) bearing Registration No. PB-10FF-7647 to earn livelihood through self employment. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that he will be given loan and got some blank forms signed from the complainant and financed Rs. 21,89,172/- with 48 equal installments of Rs. 57,150/- and deducted the first installment at the spot. 

3. It is further alleged that the complainant paid all the installments at Barnala and on 16.3.2018 the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and asked him to give him statement of his account and asked for issue of NOC and form No. 35 for the cancellation of HPA on the registration certificate and they asked that these documents will be issued within week. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties to get NOC and form No. 35 but opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to check the account of the complainant and if anything is due complainant will pay the same but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) Directions be issued to the opposite parties to issue NOC and form No. 35. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension  and harassment.             

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that of no locus standi or cause of action. The complainant had purchased the tralla for commercial purpose so he is not the consumer of the opposite parties. It is submitted that despite the present loan for purchasing the said tralla bearing registration No. PB-10FF-7647 the complainant had also obtained two other loans from the opposite parties for purchasing commercial vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10FF-6877 and PB-10GK-0547 which are still pending. Further, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and it is misuse of process of law. Further, this complaint is abuse of process of law, baseless and not a consumer dispute.  

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had obtained the loan of Rs. 21,89,172/- from the opposite parties for purchasing commercial vehicle tralla bearing registration No. PB-10FF-7647 vide loan agreement No. 1389429 dated 29.2.2016 and agreed to repay the same in 48 monthly installments of Rs. 57,150/-. The date of first installment is 15.4.2016 and last installment is 15.3.2020. Further, the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement signed the same. It is further submitted that still an amount of Rs. 52,943/- is outstanding against the complainant for the said loan. The complainant also obtained two other loans from the opposite parties for purchasing commercial vehicle. The first loan of Rs. 15,79,393/- vide agreement No. 126518 dated 30.12.2015 and  and the complainant paid only 27 installments of that loan out of 48 installments and still an amount of Rs. 13,30,853/- is outstanding against the complainant regarding the said loan Account No. 1263518. He also obtained another loan of Rs. 17,65,178/- from opposite parties for purchasing commercial vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10/GK-0547 vide loan agreement No. 2822436 dated 18.7.2017 and agreed to repay the same in 57 installments but he only paid 20 installments out of 57 installments and still an amount of Rs. 8,50,098/- is outstanding against the complainant regarding the said loan Account No. 2822436. As the complainant has committed default in paying the installments in any of the loan account with the company then the company has the power not to issue NOC regarding other loan account. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and lastly prayed for the dismissal of present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account Ex.C-3, copies of receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 and closed the  evidence.   

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikash Verma Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of loan agreements and account statements Ex.OP-1.2/2 to Ex.OP-1.2/6 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9. Before going into the merits of the present complaint firstly we deal with the main objection of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as the complainant purchased the tralla for commercial purpose and despite the present loan for purchasing the said tralla bearing registration No. PB-10FF-7647 the complainant had also obtained two other loans from the opposite parties for purchasing commercial vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10FF-6877 and PB-10GK-0547 which are still pending. 

10. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-1 deposed that he approached the opposite party No. 1 for the finance of one tralla bearing registration No. PB-10FF-7647 to earn livelihood through self employment. But to support this plea of the complainant he did not tender any documentary evidence. He also not denied that he has two trallas more for which he has also taken the loan from the opposite parties. The complainant also concealed this fact from this Commission that how many employees appointed by him to drive these three trallas as he himself cannot drive three trallas at the same time. 

11. To prove that the complainant is using the tralla in question for commercial purpose the opposite parties relied upon copy of loan agreement for vehicles and/or equipments Ex.OP-1.2/2. In this document Ex.OP-1.2/2 at the last page of this loan agreement it is specifically mentioned in schedule that tralla PB-10FF-7647 is purchased for commercial use and this page is duly signed by the complainant Balwinder Singh three times. Further, the opposite parties also tendered copy of Loan Agreement No. 1263518 for Vehicles and/or equipments Ex.OP-1.2/4 for tralla No. PB-10FF-6877. In this document Ex.OP-1.2/4 also at last page it is mentioned that the complainant Balwinder Singh purchased the trallas for commercial use. The opposite parties also tendered in evidence copy of account statement of Loan Account No. 1389429 Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of account statement of Loan Account No. 1263518 Ex.OP-1.2/5 and copy of account statement of Loan Account No. 282246 Ex.OP-1.2/6. From these documents the opposite parties proved on the file that the complainant has three trallas which was used by him for commercial purpose. We have also perused the documents Ex.OP-1.2/2 to Ex.OP-1.2/6 and we are of the view that complainant is working as a transporter and used these three trallas for commercial purpose. In case the complainant is having only one tralla then we believed that he drive the said tralla for his livelihood and exclusively for his self employment. 

12. As per Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the definition of consumer is as under.-

“(d) 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 services 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 or such services 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 services for any commercial purpose).

As per this definition if any person purchased the goods for any commercial purpose then he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, as in the present complaint it is proved on the file that the complainant is having three trallas which were used by him for commercial purpose, so in the present complaint also the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

13. The Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Nilabh Jain and another Versus Emaar MGF Land Limited and others reported in III (2018) CPJ-378 (NC) held as under.-

“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 2(1) (d), 21 (a) (ii)-Consumer-Allotment of commercial space-Bank sanctioned loan- Construction work stopped-Commercial purpose-Alleged deficiency in service- Allotment of units has been made in commercial complex and prima facie this only indicates that whole complex will be used for commercial purpose-Complainants are already engaged in business of preparation and sale of school uniforms on a large scales and it seems that they have booked these units for expansion of their business-Even loan has been sanctioned as a commercial loan-This seems to be for expansion of business-All evidence available on record goes on to show that units have been purchased for expanding business which implies commercial purpose-Complainants not consumer.”

This citation is fully applicable to the present complaint as in the present case also the complainant purchased one more tralls to expand his business which is already proved by the evidence on the record so in the present matter also the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

14. In view of the above discussion, without going into the merits of the present complaint the same is dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. No order as to costs or compensation. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate remedy to redress his grievance, if he desires so. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        27th Day of October 2020

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member