SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

      Complainant filed the complaint for getting Rs.98,500/- including price of vehicle, the money realized by the opp.parties and compensation and cost.

     The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:

     The complainant has purchased a Bajaj Boxer two wheeler lvehicle from Azad Vehicle Finance Agency in which 1^st opp.party was working and remitted Rs.27,000/- including Road Tax and Insurance Premium.  The complainant remitted  the entire loan amount on 15.8.2004.

     On demand for the refund of cheque leaves and stamp papers opp.party informed that those documents can be returned only   after the duration of 3 months.  But even after that period the opp.parties have not repaid the documents.

     On 14.8.2005 midnight at about 1.30 A.M.,   when the complainant was traveling in the said  vehicle, the men of Azad Financers attacked him and seized the vehicle along with Rs.14,500/- which was kept in the vehicle for furniture business.   The complainant filed a petition before Chavara Police Station and then before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karunagappally.   The complainant has spend Rs.15,000/- for getting his records.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief.

     The 1^st opp.party filed version  on behalf of himself and for 2^nd opp.party  contenting interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   There is no cause of action for this complaint.   There is no consumer relationship between 1^st opp.party and the complainant  because he has not availed vehicle Finance from Opp.party 1.   There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opp.party.

     The complainant has availed vehicle loan for Rs.26,500/- from 2^nd opp.party on 13.5.2003 and agreed the refund  the loan amount by 24 instalments amounting Rs.1665/- for each instalment

     But the complainant has repaid only Rs.11,475/- with default.   The Balance amount, interest and penal interest has to be  paid by the complainant.  Para 1, 2 and 3  of the complaint were denied.  No document was brought to the opp.party as security the vehicle was not  seized and the complainant was not attacked as alleged.   The vehicle is using by the complainant till now.

     The demand notice sent by the opp.party was submitted before the Forum as the evidence of his remittance.   The complaint is  experimental and shall liable to be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit.  PW.1 examined.   Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.

     Opp.parties  filed affidavit.  Even though sufficient opportunities has been given to the opp.parties they were not  turned up for cross examination.  Hence this evidence is not admissible.

     Both parties heard.  

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties

2.     Compensation and cost.

Points No.1 and 2

The learned counsel for opp.parties argued that there is no Consumer relationship between the complainant and the 1^st opp.party and I opp.party is only a witness to the agreement executed between complainant and 2^nd opp.party.    The documents produced by the complainant were perused by us.    We cannot  find any documents  through which the complainant  can improve that he is  a Consumer of 1^st opp.party.

          The main contention of 2^nd  opp.party is  that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2[1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act.   As it is a hire purchase agreement the complainant is not having any proprietary right over the vehicle and  he  is only a bailee.  He can claim the ownership of the vehicle only after the termination of hire purchase agreement.  An amount of Rs.65,274/- is outstanding as on April, 2008.  He has produced two citations in support of his arguements.  The decision of National Commission reported in 2005  CPJ Vol. 3 page 21   in which it is stated that as per hire purchase agreement the ownership is  vested with the financiers and decision reported in  2006 CPJ Vol. 3 page 247 in which the National Commission held that under hire purchase transaction the financier  in not rendering any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act therefore the  hirer is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 [1] [d].

          The complainant is not challenging that the agreement is hire purchase agreement.   But he argued that the entire amount was paid by him.  No receipt was produced by the complainant to show that he has paid the full amount.  In the cross examination complainant stated that the receipts were returned to the opp.parties.  This statement of complainant   is not believable.   There is no chance of refund of receipt to the opp.parties as it is the only evidence for bus payment.   There is no need of  submitting original receipts for the repayment of documents.   The complaint argued that transactions were  entered in the book kept by the opp.party and he never produced before the forum.   After closing the loan the 1^st opp.party collected the only  pass book kept by the complainant  saying  that it has to be sent  to the head office for closing the account.   Even a layman could  know that there is no need of  sending passbook for the closure of accounts.  Moreover all these  the burden to prove that the complainant remitted full amount is upon the complainant himself.

          The complainant argued that the vehicle was forcibly seized by the men of opp.parties by physical attack and Rs.14,000/- which was kept in   his vehicle  also was taken by them.   He has lodged complaint before Chavara Police Station and before Deputy Superintendent of Police Ext. P3 is the receipt for the complaint lodged lby the complainant before Circle Inspector of ChavaraPolice Station and Ext.P4 is the receipt for the complaint lodged before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karunagappally.  Not any criminal case was registered by the Circle Inspector or DYSP.  The indication about the petition lodged before DYSP <Gw\wjdd\,juksm il<rf\fjsRy SgDdxkA aMkA sdlmk]kr\rjh\h tr\rkA aMkA  In the cross examination the complainant has stated “    il<rA ejmjvsvmkf\ffjsrfjSg c\SM,rjH eglfj rHdj;   Lijsm tqkfjiu\ejv\vk      The learned counsel for opp.party put a question that  “TYedlgakxx  Qgk cA.iA rm]kr\rfksdln\smh\Sh DYSP  SelhkA rmemj cIdgj]lfjgkr\rf\.  The complainant answered “Lh\h”

     If an incident  happened so,  the responsible Police Officer should have registered a Criminal case.  If the Police Officers were reluctant  to   take any steps the complainant can take other legal measures.  No further legal steps were taken by the complainant.   The complainant could not prove the alleged illegal forcible seizure of vehicle.   Consumer Forum is not  the proper Forum to litigate the alleged physical attack and theft.

For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no consumer relationship between complainant and opp.parties , no forcible seizure of vehicle, no deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties

     In the result the complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

      Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2009.

                                                                             .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – K. Mohanan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Certificate Registration

P2. – Insurance  paper

P3. – Notice sent by 2^nd opp.party

P4. – Road Tax copy

P5. – Copy of Petition before Chavara CI of Police

P6. – Copy of Petition before Karunagappally DYSP