1. Brief fact of the case of the complainant is that for purpose of earning his livelihood he purchased four numbers of trucks under hire purchase agreement from the O.P.  It is alleged that he has completely repaid the loan amount in three numbers vehicles with an extra premium of Rs. 4,42,154/- and the same can be adjusted in the loan amount of 2^nd number vehicle.  It is also alleged that on 03.09.2014 the O.P. with his muscle man and goondas came to the house of the Complainant and demanded Rs. 12,00,000/- towards loan amount illegally and arbitrarily otherwise they will seize all the vehicles, but they compelled the Complainant to give an undertaking to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- within 12 days and within 2/3 days intervals they frequently on telephonic message to pay the said amount.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of O.P. he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 4,42,154/- towards extra amount collected, Rs. 2,69,006/- to be adjusted in the loan amount, and to pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards and compensation and cost of litigation to him.
2. The Opp. Party, on the other hand, appeared in this case, filed their counter challenging the maintainability of the present case on the point that the Complainant is not consumer as per section 2(d) of the Act.  Further they have contended that the Complainant is having four numbers of commercial vehicle, which he uses as like a fleet owner, for transport business to earn huge profit and he has caused a huge loss to the finance company by not paying their installments and to avoid his liability he took under the Fora which is not sustainable and as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement the present disputes only can be entertained by a sole arbitrator and should be settled as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  Thus denying their liabilities and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  We have perused the documents and materials available on record.
4. In the instant case, neither the Complainant nor his authorized representative appeared since the day of admission of this case inspite of repeated adjournments were given to him keeping in view of natural justice for their submissions, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.  On the other hand, the Opp. Party filed their counter and appeared at the time of hearing.  As such we heard only from the authorized representative of the Opp. Party at length. 
5. Before going into the merits, we have decided to discuss about the contentions raised by the Opp. Party regarding the maintainability of the present dispute on the point that the Complainant is not a consumer and that the Complainant is having four numbers of trucks which are used for transportation work and from which he earns huge profits.  We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the Complainant and the counter filed by the Opp. Party.  It is ascertained that admittedly Complainant has purchased 4 numbers of trucks under higher purchase agreement with the Opp. Parties such as :
   
   i. 10 wheeler for Rs. 4,35,000/- Regd. No. OR-11A-4667
   ii.  10 wheeler for Rs. 7,76,256/- Regd. No. CG-04-JB-4797
   iii. 6 wheeler for Rs. 9,63,103/- Regd. No. OR-10-H-0757
   iv. 10 wheeler for Rs 6,28,000/- Regd. No. AP-31-Y-3517

Further as per the counter version of the Opp. Party, it is also ascertained that the Complainant is having due of Rs. 14,78,173/- to the Opp. Party.Since the Complainant did not appear at the time of hearing and never challenged the versions of the Opp. Party, as such the contentions of Opp. Party cannot be disbelieved.Further it is well settled of law that one person who is having more than one commercial vehicles, it cannot be presumed that all the vehicles are used for earning livelihood.As, in our view, for earning for livelihood using of one or two vehicle is sufficient, but using four numbers of vehicles in transportation work one persons definitely earns more profit out of those, as such he cannot be said to be a consumer as per the Act.Further it is found that the Complainant neither appeared before this Fora nor established that the vehicles used by him are only meant for earning livelihood.Hence it is presumed that the Complainant has used all the four vehicles only for commercial gains.We have gone through the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Sanjay Bansal versus Vipul Ltd. and another reported in 2014 CJ 32 N.C., wherein the Hon’ble Commission has held that “Person who hires or avails of any service for any commercial purpose is excluded from definition of Consumer”.  As such it is concluded that since the Complainant had purchased four numbers of trucks as an investment to make profit by utilizing those vehicles specifically in the transportation work, hence the Complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and he cannot maintain the consumer complaint under the Act.Hence this order.

ORDER

Considering the facts of the case, we dismiss the case of Complainant as the Complainant is not being a consumer under the Act does not deserve to file the consumer complaint before the Fora.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of March, 2018.  Issue free copy to the parties concerned.