This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  by the complainant, Bijendra Kumar Singh.

The complainant’s case in hand in brief is that the complainant took loan from the opposite party and purchased four trucks for his livelihood and the complainant uses to drive the said vehicles as and when required.  The vehicles number and loan agreements are as follows;

1.WB/15A/6071 vide loan agreement No.XVFPKAT00000318784 dated 9.7.2008.

2.WB/15A/6072 vide loan agreement No.XVFPKAT00000318725 dated 9.7.2008.

3. WB/15A/6172 vide loan agreement No.XVFPKAT00000320110 dated 9.7.2008.

4. WB/15A/6173 vide loan agreement No.XVFPKAT00000318875 dated 9.7.2008.

That the said loans were scheduled to pay within 46 months in 46 installments.  The entire loan with interest is to be paid within the stipulated period of 45 months as per agreement.  But inspite of clearing the entire loan amount with interest the opposite party is not giving NOC after several verbal requests and Advocate’s notice dated 28.11.2016. In absence of NOC the complainant is unable to renew the National Permit of the said vehicle for which he is suffering loss due to non-use of vehicles.  More over the said vehicles are not being sold as the NOC is not received from the opposite party.

That as the National Permits are not renewed for want of NOC, the Motor Vehicle Department, Hooghly was pleased to block the numbers of the said vehicles and no permit is being issued by the department concerned for which the said vehicles are lying idle.  No tax is being accepted for the said vehicles and the concerned authority are imposing 100% penalty in every quarter for each vehicle.  That inspite of all requests on behalf of the complainant the opposite party did not pay any heed and for that the complainant is suffering loss month by month.  The amount of loss is to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- every year and still he is suffering loss due to non-issuance of NOC by the opposite party since 10.3.2012. 

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the opposite party to issue NOC immediately, to pay compensation for loss of business amounting to Rs.18,00,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost to the complainant.

The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him.  This opposite party submits that in or about 2008, the complainant approached the opposite party seeking for financial assistance for purchasing commercial vehicles and represented that the complainant would duly repay the monies due under the loan agreement without any demur, objection, qualification or protest.

Pursuant thereto and believing in the said representations, the opposite party entered into Four Loan Agreements with the complainant and sanctioned below mentioned loan amount in favour of the complainant against hypothecation of the subject vehicle.  Details of the loan agreements along with its repayment are given herein below:-

In breach of the terms of the agreement the complainant paid only installment but failed and/or neglected to pay the future subsequent installments and or charges. As such, as on date a total sum of Rs.3,28,308/- has become due and payable by the complainant to the opposite party.  In view of aforesaid facts, it is evident that the complainant has not yet cleared all the dues as agreed by him under the aforesaid agreement and as such he is not entitled for the NOC.

 Both sides filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order. 

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Bijendra Kumar Singh is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

 In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

(1).Whether the Complainant Bijendra Kumar Singh is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainant being the customer of the opposite party took financial assistance following the terms and conditions of loan agreement.  So, he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued Rs.19,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other expenses ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

 According to this complaint petition that the complainant entered into 4 loan agreements with the opposite party for purchasing four trucks. The complainant paid the loan amount with interest within the stipulated time of 45 months. Inspite of repayment of the said loan the opposite party failed to give NOC. So the complainant served advocate notice upon the opposite party seeking NOC but the opposite party pit no bid at the utterance so the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying direction upon the opposite party as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.  Due to non issuance of the NOC the complainant is unable to renew the National Permit of the said vehicles as a result he could not use those vehicles as National Permit holder.  He also stated that National permit are not renewed for want of NOC and the Motor Vehicles department Hooghly was pleased to block the numbers of the said vehicles and no permit is being issued by the department concern for which the said vehicles are lying idle. No tax is being accepted for the said vehicles and the concerned authority are imposing 100% penalty in every quarter for each vehicle.  That inspite of all requests on behalf of the complainant the opposite party did not pay any heed and for that the complainant is suffering loss month by month.  The amount of loss is to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- every year and still he is suffering loss due to non-issuance of NOC by the opposite party since 10.3.2012. 

Opposite party in his written notes of argument assailed that complainant availed of financial assistance from the opposite party for purchasing four commercial vehicles being trucks  and is making profit out of the same. So the complainant cannot be termed as consumer as defined in the Sec.2(d) of the consumer protection act,1986. The compliant stated that he plied the vehicles in question for his livelihood by self employment but it is not possible for a person to ply four commercial vehicles at a time.  By stating the definition of consumer the opposite party tried to establish that the complainant plied his vehicles for commercial purpose.   The complainant has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the four vehicle are plied by him by self employment but no document filed in that respect.  So, the complainant cannot take plea of earning livelihood by self employment.  Opposite party further averred that the complainant filed the instant complaint admitting that he entered into four loan agreements and agreement value of those four agreements are of Rs.42,80,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.  According to the complainant he paid all the EMIs in the year 2012 but the instant complaint filed in the year 2016 i.e. after expiry of four years.  So, the complaint petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of limitation U/s.24A of C.P. Act.

The opposite party also relied the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Richard Raja Singh Vs. Ford Motor Company Ltd.[IV (2014) CPJ 509 (NC) wherein it has been held that ‘Neither serving of the notice upon the opposite parties nor their response to the said notice gave any fresh cause of action to the complainants to file this complaint. The cause of action which accrued to the complainants before this commission cannot be said to be a continuing cause of action’.

Opposite party also averred that complainant was irregular in paying the installment in all four agreements and also failed to pay delay charges and others.  So, he is not entitled to get NOC from the opposite party. 

 After perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit , written notes of argument and hearing the arguments it appears that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party sanctioning loan amount of Rs.10,70,000/- X 4= Rs.42,80,000/-and he prayed compensation in the complaint petition amounting to Rs.19,00,000/- in total.  So, the pecuniary jurisdiction reckoned to Rs.61,80,000/-. As per complaint petition the value of the goods or services means the consideration agreed to be paid by the consumer for the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of.  Hon’ble National Commission in Ambarish Kumar Sukla & 21 others Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure  Pvt. Ltd. held that the word value referred in sections tends to suggest that it is the market price of the goods or the services as the case may be, which when added to the amount of compensation if any, claimed in the complaint so determined the pecuniary jurisdiction of the consumer forum on an deeper consideration, we are of the view that it is the price of the goods or the services as the case may be agreed to be paid by the consumer which would be relevant for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.  Lastly, the amount of compensation as claimed in the complaint petition need to be added to the agreed consideration and the aggregate of the consideration and the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  According to Section-11 of the C.P. Act, 1986 this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the cases not more than Rs.20,00,000/- but in the instant case the value of the goods or services and compensation reckoned to Rs.61,80,000/- which is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum. So, the complaint petition lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

The discussion made herein before we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complaint petition filed by the complainant exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of Ld. District Forum.  As the case is liable to be dismissed so there is no question to allow compensation.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the application U/S-12 of C.P. Act,1986 filed before this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly the petition of complaint along with its annexure be returned to the complainant or his advocate to file to the appropriate Forum with a liberty to make necessary modification only in respect of filing the same to the appropriate Forum without changing the nature and character of this complaint. Office is directed to hand over the complaint with its annexure to the complainant or the filing advocate positively by 30.08.2019

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.