DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.702 and 703/2010
M/s Kuber Travels Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at, B-19,2nd Floor, Vyapar Kendra,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana,
Through its Managing Director Shri Bhoodev Singh. ….Complainant
Versus
M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.,
(Through its Managing Director)
Office at 2nd Floor, Express Building,
Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, ITO, New Delhi,
Also at: Ansal Classic Plaza, IXth Floor, Rajouri Garden,
Raja Garden, New Delhi.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 30.11.10 Date of Order : 26.03.18
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Vide this order, we shall dispose of complaint bearing No. 702/10 titled Kuber Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HDFC Bank and complaint bearing No. 703/10 titled Kuber Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HDFC Bank as both the complaints pertain to the same vehicle bearing registration No. HR-55-DT-9874 though with different reliefs but involve the same questions of law.
As per the averments made in the complaints, the complainant who is a private limited company and is being represented through its Managing Director Shri Bhoodev Singh had borrowed the auto loan from the OP for purchasing the vehicle in question vide Auto Loan Agreement “in order to the livelihood complainant time to time use to purchase the different type of vehicle”. When the disputes as detailed in the complaints arose the complainant filed the present complaints by pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant which is not only a private limited company but also an ISO 9001:2000 certified company availed vehicle loan for commercial purpose for running the company inter-alia involved in taxi operations; apart from the loan in question complaint has availed the several commercial auto loans from the OP the details of which are given in Para-6 of the preliminary submissions. It is stated that since the loan has been taken for commercial purposes, the complainant is not a Consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Other averments made in the complaints have been denied. It is prayed that complaints be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder and has pleaded that the complainant had availed auto loans from time to time for various brand of new vehicles.
Parties have filed their affidavits in evidence.
Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the parties.
Copies of judgments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
During pendency of the complaints, it was pleaded on behalf of the OP on 12.07.2016 that full and final settlement has already taken place between the parties vide MOU dated 29.01.2013 and the complainant has also paid an amount of Rs.3,72,050/- towards full and final settlement. However, it was submitted on behalf of the complainant that MOU in question is fabricated and forged one inasmuch as the same does not bear the signature of the complainant from page No. 7 to 13 and OP have inserted Para-3. Original NOCs/ MOU were directed to be filed on the record. However, on 22.11.2017 Shri Ashish Singh, Senior Manager/ AR of the OP made a statement that the original MOU dated 29.01.2013 had been misplaced and hence could not be filed.
Oral arguments have been heard on behalf of the OP. However, no oral arguments have been advanced on behalf of the complainant despite opportunities given in this regard.
Even, if we do not take the fact into an account that full and final settlement has already been made between the parties, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as there is abundance of evidence on the record to prove that the complainant had availed number of auto loans including the loan in question from the OP for running taxi operations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant has been running the said business for the purposes of earning livelihood as is tried to be pleaded in the complaint. Therefore, the transaction in question being commercial in nature the present complaints do not raise a consumer dispute. The same are accordingly dismissed.
Let the original judgment be placed in file C.C. No. 702/10 and certified copy of the judgment be placed in file C.C. No. 703/10.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter files be consigned to record room.
Announced on 26.03.18.
