The brief fact of the case is that the complainant availed a loan from HDFC Bank, Barbil Branch for purchase of 5 Nos of TATA LPK 2518/38, 10 CUM ABS with BSI. The demand drafts for all 5 vehicles were issued by the Banker of the petitioner. After verifying all documents the Op delivered the vehicles to the petitioner on dt.08.08.2017 at Jamsedpur. Then all documents were placed before the registering authority for registration of the vehicle. But the registering authority refused to register 3 vehicles out of 5 no’son dt.11.08.2017. The complainant intimated the matter regarding deficiency of service by Ops and also requested to rectify the mistakes. The petitioner also sent photocopies of actual Engine No. i.e. engine sticker and TML invoices. That the registration of 3 no’s of vehicles was affected after mistake were rectified by the Ops. Such negligence by Ops put the petitioner mentally and physically harassment for which ops are entitled for Rs.8,29,500/- as compensation along with Rs.20,000 for litigation expenses. The cause of action arose on dt.28.07.2017 till filing of the case the value of the case is Rs.8,29,500/- .
The complainant relies on the following documents
- Photocopy of pollution certificate of vehicles bearing chasisNo.MAT448187HAF06177,MAT448187HAF06178 & MAT448187HAF06179.
- Photocopy sale certificate dtd.04.08.2017
- Photocopy of Mail conversation between parties.
- Photocopy of Mail dtd.22.08.2017
- Photocopy of R.C Book of vehicles bearing registration No.OD-09-G-1504,1505,1506,1264,1265.
- Reply of M/s Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd. to Aryavarta Khanija Pvt. Ltd.
On the above complain the case is admitted & notice issued to Ops. Opposite party appeared and filed their written version. It is submitted by the Ops that the present proceedings is not maintainable, no cause of action arises to file this case. It is also submitted that the complainant being a profit making transport company involved with mining business can never comes under the preview of consumer according to Consumer Protection Act. As the vehicles are hypothecated from HDFC Bank. The Bank is the sole owner of the vehicle until and unless the loan amount is totally clear and the complainant is only a hirer. In this case Op is only the authorized dealer of TATA Motors who is a necessary party in this case. In absence of Manufacturing Company this proceeding cannot be properly decided. It is also submitted that complainant is not a consumer of this Op as the transaction was for commercial purpose. Op is the dealer of TATA Motors Office at Jamsedpur the complainant obtained 5 no’s of vehicles from Jemsedpur through his agent. So no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Keonjhar Dist. So the complainant is not legally entitled to get any compensation as claim. So the complaint petition being vexatious and devoid of merit, deserves no consideration and thus liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
On the above pleadings following issues are framed for better discussion and pass necessary order
ISSUES
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer.
2. Whether the case is barred for Misjoinder and Non-joinder of necessary parties.
3. Whether the Op has made any unfair trade practice and deficiency of service to the complainant.
4.Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
FINDINGS
It is admitted that the complainant company M/S- Aryavarta Khanija Pvt Ltd. has purchased 5 no’s of vehicle at one time duly financed by HDFC Bank Barbil Branch for the purpose of its own requirement which means that the complainant company runs the business of Iron transporting which is a commercial purpose nothing found that for earning its livelihood. So the complainant transporting company M/s- Aryavarta Khanija Pvt. Ltd. is not a consumer as per C.P Act.1986.
So far as wrong engine No. and Chassis No. mentioned in the tax invoice. The manufacturing company mentioned engine no by mistake. The Op Company made correspondence with manufacturer and the mistake were immediately rectified. So manufacturing company TATA Motors is a necessary party in this case. But the complainant has neither added the manufacturing company nor the financer bank. In absence of both parties This proceeding cannot be properly decided on the legal point of view. So this case is barred for Mis-joinder and Non-joinder of necessary parties.
In this case after the complaint filed by the complainant company the Ops made correspondence with manufacturing company to rectify the mistakes of wrong engine No. which was rectified by the Op. So Op company being the authorized dealer has not made any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service to the complainant.
So the complainant M/s- Aryavarta Khanija Pvt. Ltd. is not entitled to get any benefits as claimed.
ORDER
The complain petition being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
