Brief fact of this case is that the complainant filed this case for deficiency of service against Ops. The cause of action arose on dt.28.06.2021.That the complainant purchased one truck bearing registration No.OR 09 H 1325 duly financed by Ops on dt.14.08.2017 the complainant refinanced the said vehicle of Rs.4,00,000/- and the monthly instalmentwas fixed to Rs.17,413/- in 32 instalments. On dt.22.06.2020 the complainant further refinanced Rs.3,89,600/- and instalment fixed to Rs.17,169/- in 31 no of instalment and the loan has to complete within dt.10.02.2023. On dt.06.07.2022 the Ops sent a notice to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.2,10,625/- which is illegal. The Ops are threatening to seize the vehicle, where the complainant has already paid Rs.12,00,000/-. after that the Ops are demanding illegally. On the above complain the complainant prays to give direction to Ops to issue NOC and also prayed to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also prayed that Op be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income and damage of vehicle.
The complainant relied on the following documents
- Photocopy of R.C.
- Photocopy of Account Statement.
- Photocopy of Default Notice.
- Photocopy of Notice Dtd.06.07.2022.
On the above complain notice is issued to Op. The Op appeared and filed his w/v. It is submitted by OP that this commission has no jurisdiction as per agreement and any dispute, differences, claims and question whatever arising out of loan agreement it shall be referred to the arbitrator. So this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complain. The relationship between debtor and creditor cannot be a subject matter of a petition of complains before any Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and as such the dispute does not fall within the scope and ambit of C.P Act. Therefore the complainant shall not get any relief from this Hon’ble Commission. As per Judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC as reported in 2006(iii) CPJ 247 N.C. Which is well discussed and relied by The Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha while deciding the case of Deepak Kumar Sahoo Vs Indusind Bank Ltd.VideJudgement date 20.11.2009. This point has been well established. It is also discussed and decided in case of Mandal Plastic Industries Vs Bihar state Finance Co. (1998(2) CPR 254) with regard to grant of loan by financial institution it was held that the borrower is not a consumer under the Act. Thus the complain is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. It is also submitted that as on dt.24.09.2022 a sum of Rs.3,77,345/- was outstanding against complainant for which Op sent a notice. The loan account has not been closed yet. So, questionof issuance of no dues certificate does not arise. So the complainant has filed this case to grab public money. In the above circumstances Op submitted that the complaint petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
On the above circumstances the Ops relied on the following documents.
- Account Statement of the vehicle No.OR 09 H 1325.
Both the parties have filed their respective written argument.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether OPs have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
All the issues are Inter linked with each other so they are discussed jointly to decide the case. It is a fact that the complainant has arbitration hypothecation agreement with Ops. All disputes differences claims and questions what’s ever arising out of this agreement shall be referred to the arbitrator. So this Hon’ble commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complain. Apart from that Op has issued notice demanding outstanding dues which is their right as per agreement. The complainant is a debtor and Op is a creditor. The dispute and difference between them cannot be a subject matter of complaint before any Consumer Commission and such dispute does not fall within the scope and ambit of C.P Act.Therefore the complainant shall not be able to get any relief. As per Judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC as reported in 2006(iii) CPJ 247 N.C. Which is well discussed and relied by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha. This commission has not found any deficiency of service by Ops. The complainant submitted that he has paid already Rs.12,00,000/- on the said loan. But it is admitted that he has refinanced the vehicle for two times as per his pleadings. The complainant has not come to this commission in clean hands. So this case is not maintainable, there is no cause of action arises in this case. The Ops have not made any deficiency of service to complainant. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Dispute regarding account are civil in nature.
ORDER
The complain petition being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
The order is pronounced in open Commission today i.e on 17th November 2023 under the seal and signature of the commission.
