KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.435/05 JUDGMENT DATED.19.12.08 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Annamalai Finance Ltd., Presently known as Shiva Textarn Ltd., Tripuri Buildings, 3/568, -- APPELLANT Wayanad Road, East Nadakkav, Calicut. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) Vs. P.K.Moidu, Son of Ammad, -- RESPONDENT Managing Trustee, Islamic Centre Trust, B Street, Mananthavady. (By Adv.Anitha Aji) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The present appeal is preferred by the opposite party in OP.187/2000 and by the order dated.16.1.04 he was under directions to issue clearance certificate within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order failing which the complainant/respondent was directed to approach the Regional Transport Officer for canceling the hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum alleging that the opposite party, after having received the whole amount as per the hire purchase agreement was not amenable to issue clearance certificate and to take steps to cancel the endorsement in the RC book. It was his case that the opposite party was demanding a further sum of Rs.20,000/- for issuing the loan clearance certificate. Alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed praying for directions to issue the loan clearance certificate in respect of the vehicle for which the loan was taken from the opposite party. 3. The opposite party contested the matter by filing version. The main attack was on the question of jurisdiction. The opposite party submitted before the forum below that the forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the matters with regard to hire purchase and that the complaint was liable to pay a sum of Rs.23968/- as on 1.7.2000. It was submitted that only on payment of the above said amount, the clearance certificate could be issued. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts A1 to A5. On the side of the opposite party Ext.B1 was marked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below is per se illegal and un-sustainable. He has submitted before us that the argument of the complainant/respondent that he had paid the whole amount towards hire purchase agreement is wrong and there is substantial amount due to the opposite party/appellant in connection with the transaction. He has also challenged the question of jurisdiction on the ground that a loan/hire purchase matter cannot be tried under consumer Protection Act. He has further relied on a decision of this Commission reported in Sreeja Finance V.Saumini and Anr. 2008 (1) CPR 123 and invited our attention to the decision dated 13.2.2003 of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.367 of 1998 relying on an earlier decision in Manager, St.Ary’s Hire Purchase (P) Ltd. V.NA Jose wherein the Hon’ble Commission had found that the hirer (complainant) held the vehicle as a bailee of the owner and was not to have any proprietory right or interest as purchaser and as per law on the subject it cannot be said that the complainant had hired the service of the petitioner to fall within the purview of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The same view was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Dishulhara’s Case where it was observed that under a hire purchase transaction the financier does not render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and the hirer is thus not a consumer. 6. Hence the irresistible conclusion is that the forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite party to issue the clearance certificate and in the alternative the complainant can approach the Regional Transport officer to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the R.C. book. In the result appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 16.1.04 of the forum below in OP.187/2000. However, we make it clear that the complainant/respondent is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for getting his allegations substantiated if so advised. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER S/L
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
