Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President Complainant in person states that his advocate is busy in other courts. That is not a valid ground for the purpose of granting an adjournment in view of regulation no.11(8) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we have heard the complainant. Complainant has submitted that he is claiming an amount of `40,30,274/- only with 36% p.a. interest from 01/08/2009 till realization of the amount as compensation cum damages for the loss suffered by the complainant on account of principal amount paid by the complainant, interest thereon, expenditure in legal matters, deficiency of service, humiliation, mental agony, business loss, physical torture and unrest. According to complainant, he approached O.P.no.2 for purchase of two buses namely, one Complete Body Built Delux Bus (Air-conditioned) Eicher 11.10 Model (36 Seater) & another Complete Body Built Delux Bus (Air-conditioned) Eicher 20.15 Model (43 Seater) on 25/3/2004. It is his case that O.P.no.2 represented that complainant need not have to pay a single penny as down payment and O.P.no.2 will arrange the entire loan amount from some financial institution. It was further represented by O.P.no.2 that complainant has to pay three to four installments towards the loan amount and has to pay the balance loan amount in installments after plying the buses and, therefore, complainant has agreed to purchase aforesaid two vehicles. It is further submitted that at the instance of opponent no.2, complainant approached opponent no.1 and opponent no.1 sanctioned and disbursed the loan behind and at the back of the complainant, without even informing the complainant about terms and conditions of the said sanction and disbursement of the loan by O.P.no.1 to O.P.no.2. Complainant, thus, has taken finance from opponent no.1 for the purpose of above referred two vehicles. Alleged Loan was sanctioned to `12lakhs and `14,50,000/- respectively and the complainant has paid the installments of `29,875/- each totally amounting to `5,37,750/- towards Eicher 11.10 model and in respect of Eicher 20.15 model, he has paid installments of `36,096/- each totally amounting to `6,13,632/-. Since one vehicle was given and other was not given, in respect of other vehicle also there are complaints. In para 1 of the complaint it has been stated that complainant is a proprietor of M/s.Shree Siddhivinayak Travels and carries on business from the aforesaid address. In para 2 of the complaint it is stated that complainant intended to purchase two Eicher buses for the purpose of his travel business earning income for purpose of his livelihood and an end user of the said vehicle. We have asked the complainant in this respect. Complainant however stated that presently he is plying one vehicle on road. These vehicles are being purchased for the purpose of commercial activities. Whether he is having a vehicle or no vehicle, that does not make any difference because he was purchasing two vehicles for the purpose of proprietary business to be carried in the name and style of M/s.Shree Siddhivinayak Travels. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) contemplates that the goods brought and used by consumer and the service availed by him shall be exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of ‘self employment’. While making submission and drafting complaint, care has been taken to use the word ‘self employment’. It is only stated that it is for the purpose of ‘livelihood’. Every person who carries on business always carries it for livelihood. Question is whether it is ‘self employment’ and/or with the other employees under him. When he is purchasing two vehicles, admittedly it is an employment to be provided to somebody else than the complainant and, therefore, from the material which is placed on record, we are satisfied that this is a commercial transaction, which is not exclusively for ‘livelihood and self employment’ of the complainant. Complaint therefore is not tenable. On the basis of the statement and the particulars given in the complaint, it is hereby rejected. |
