ORDER

15.04.2022

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Present complaint has been filed by complaints seeking a direction to the opposite party to withdraw all vague and false claims and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of sale proceeds of vehicle of complainant. To disclose all the papers regarding selling of vehicle, disclose all the papers regarding the two loans given by OP to complainant, to give loan clearance certificate, to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment.   
2. It is stated that complainantwas in search of job/ occupation for his livelihood. Complainant had approached OP No. 2 for the post of driver at its Gurugram office. The representative of OP No.2 told the complainant No.1 that OP No.2 integrates city transportation for customer and driver partners onto a mobile technology platform ensuring convenient transparent an quick service fulfilment. The representative of OP No.2 had shown the complainant No.1on website that OP No. 2 had on or about 10 Lakhs empowered entrepreneurs as driver partners on the mobile technology platform which they offers to customer who can drive their own commercial vehicle and drop the client of the OP No. 2 in or outside the city on their behalf. The OP No.2 in or outside the city on their behalf. OP No.2 for that particular purpose used to take consideration on every single transport passenger which they provide to complainantNo.1.
3. It is stated that complainant No.1met representative of OP No.1 and made an offer to purchase the vehicle for his own so that complainant will earn a handsome amount of money and representative of OP No. 1 had promised to get it attached that particular vehicle OP No. 2 so that complainant No.1can start earning of his own for his livelihood purpose from transportation industry. Customer representative of OP No.1 had assured the complainant No.1that he will arrange some type letter from OP No. 2 and by which complainant No.1can obtain the financial assistance from OP No.1 Company.
4. It is stated that customer representative of the OP No.1 had presented a picture of Shriram as a conglomerate which has significant presence in financial services. Representative of OP No. 1 had told complainant No.1that OP No.1 deals in commercial vehicle financing business consumer finance life and general insurance stock broking chit funds and distribution of financial products.
5. It is stated that representatives of OP No. disclosed, reported that the OP No. dint have the heart to send any driver back empty handed. OP No.2 told the complainantNo.1that if the complainant No.1will invest Rs. 2,00,000/- to 2,25,000/- in the purchase of new vehicle than OP fund the rest of amount to purchase the vehicle for the purpose of Taxi of his own and will help the complainant to get it attached with the OP No.2 for livelihood of his own.
6. It is stated that complainant No.1had availed the loan facility with the OP1 paying loan processing fee.
7. It is stated that OP No.1’s representative had taken the signature of complainant No.1on blank loan documents without explaining any terms and conditions to him. The OP No. 1 assured the complainant No.1that they will get all the formalities done to arrange the rest of money towards the purchase of new vehicle. Complainant No.1had informed that he had no statutory documents with him to obtain the financial help such as complainant No.1had no ITR or any income proof of any kind and not enough money in his bank account or any collateral and despitethat OP No.1 had grant the loan to complainant No.1for the best reason is known to OP No. 1 who had also taken some security cheques which they assured the complainant No.1that these are for security purpose and they will return once the loan is paid or get settled before the tenure of the loan. The OP No. 1 continuously threatening to use those security cheques of the purpose of part payment and upon bouncing those cheques the OP No.1 will proceed under criminal proceedings against the complainantNo.1.
8. It is stated after getting loan facility from OP No.1 the complainant had purchased a new car bearing No.  DL1 RTA 7563 and had installed a taxi cab meter in the vehicle. Complainant No. 2 stood as guarantor for complainant No.1. Complainant No. 1 had started driving the said vehicle in transportation business. Since beginning, complainant had not been provided the enough customers by the OP No. 2. Which the OPs told that they will provide the transport passenger to them if the complainant avail the services offered by them. It is stated that complainant No. 1had to pay the EMIs towards the aforesaid financial help and as well the OP No.2 also charges consideration every time when they provide the customers to the complainantNo. 1.
9. It is stated that the OP No.2 accept bookings from the public through mobile based application. Once the customer makes a booking the OP No.2 by using their internal systems searches for registered drivers available around the customer’s locations. The OP No.2 exercisesitstheir sole discretion in selecting a driver to service the ride. However the element of freedom and independent decision making on part of the complainant No. 1 is non-existent in the entire sequence of actions. The chargeable fare keeps varying on a daily basis on the whims of the OP No.2 No prior notice is given to complainant No. 1 in this regard. It is stated that complainant No. 1 had also to suffer arbitrary deductions in their payments on vague and unsubstantiated grounds, without even giving complainantNo. 1  a change to respond. The complainantNo. 1 is demanding a revision in the minimum fares and the bringing back of bonuses that were on offer in the initial days and later on OP No. 2 didn’t provide any of these facilities.
10. It is stated that both the OPs had made false promises to the complainant No. 1 and since beginning the OP had not provided the enough client for his livelihood and hence it is the deficiency in services on the part of the OP No. 2 that what they have assured to the customer fails to do so. Complainants humbly prays from the Commission to look into the grievances of the complainants and hopefully end the misery suffering and helplessness of complainants of most inhuman exploitation. It will be possible with the help of this Commission to ensure social justice to complainantNo. 1  so that he may be able to breathe the fresh air of social and economic freedom.
11. It is stated that OP No. 1 is also following unfair trade practice as they had provided another loan account bearing No. AZDPR075040001 to the customer and that too without consent of the customer. Complainant No. 1 has not given any consent or given in writing to provide such type of loan which they have provided to complainantNo. 1. OP No.1 should be held liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in services for these type of activities.
12. It is stated that complainant No. 1 is facing a lot of financial difficulties as was not able to run the family of his own and apart from that he had to pay the EMIs to the OP No. 1 as well as part payment of consideration on every client provided by the OP No. 2. For several months complainant No. 1 had paid the EMIs from his own pocket to OP No. 1 because complainant was not getting the enough customers as the offer made by OPs. That all the promises made by the OP to complainant No. 1 were false frivolous and vague.
13. It is stated that after few months when the complainant No. 1  was not able to pay the EMIs and some of the EMIs were bounced back due to the above said reasons, the goons of the OP No. 1 started to threatening the complainant No. 1 to pay the EMIs as well as various vague charges and other late payment charges, otherwise they will snatch the vehicle from complainant No. 1 and will eliminate complainant No. 1 to death and will make the life of the complainant hell.   OP No.1 had also started to levy the various vague charges and other late payment charges despite not considering the fault on their part that both the OPs are connived with each other and for the mutual benefit they had made false promise to complainantNo. 1.
14. It is stated that after continuous threatening and mental pressure from OP No. 1 Complainant No. 1 had approached OP No. 1 office and told his problems. Complainant No. 1 was suggested to surrender his vehicle and accordingly complainant No. 1 had done so on 20.11.2017. When complainantNo. 1  surrender the vehicle the cost of the same was about Rs. 5 Lakhs and remaining outstanding balance was about Rs. 3 Lakh. ComplainantNo. 1  was informed by officials of the OP No. 1 that complainantNo. 1 can check the insurance papers of taxi for year 2017, which clearly tells that depreciation is 15% charged on aforesaid vehicle. The complainant No. 1 asked representative Mr.Ravinder Singh cost of taxi is much more than what is outstanding dues on loan account, how the company will give the difference amount back to the complainant No. 1 to that particular query representative told to surrender the Taxi owned by complainant No. 1 that he cannot sold the vehicle of his own because it is mortgaged property with the OP No. 1. The representative of  OP No. 1 suggested the complainant No. 1 that they had an offer for the complainantNo. 1  that they will submit complainant’s taxi and will sell the taxi after charging 15% to 20% depreciation as the vehicle was only 1 to 1- ½ years old and by doing so complainant No. 1 can settle the loan as well as complainant No. 1 will receive the difference amount of approximately   Rs. 1.5 Lakh . the official of the OP No. 1 receiving the taxi of complainantNo. 1 and issued a “Vehicle Inventory & clerking sheet” bearing No.  750768 as a receipt of surrendering the vehicle to OP No. 1 and told the complainantNo. 1 to wait until the said vehicle is sold off. All the documents related to the aforesaid vehicle was surrendered to OP No.1 which are clearly mentioned on “Vehicle Inventory & clerking sheet” bearing No.  750768 like registration certificate, insurance paper, permit and tax papers. Complainant No. 1 in good faith relied upon OP No.1.
15. It is stated that OPNo.1 had provided the insurance of the aforesaid vehicle to the complainant  No. 1 from their own sister concern company OP No. 2 and estimated the value of vehicle to be near about 4.06 lakhs which clearly shows that the OP No. 1 is not following the fair trade practice they have sold the vehicle for less value than they had estimated in the insurance papers which clearly shows deficiency in service on their part and their intentions to entrap the complainantNo. 1.
16. It is stated that complainant No. 1 is making regular follows ups through making phone calls and personally visiting the office of the OP No. 1 for getting difference amount which the complainant No. 1 is entitled to get.
17. Complainant had paid EMIs totalling about Rs. 1,00,000/- and such official told the complainant No. 1 that OP No. 1 will sell the aforesaid vehicle as the vehicle was totally new one.
18. It is stated that complainants got shocked when he received a letter dated 21.01.2019 after one year of surrendering the vehicle that there were some dues towards complainantNo. 1. These are totally contrary to the statement made by officials of the OP No. 1 Mr.Ravinder Singh who has taken the possession of the aforesaid vehicle and assured the complainant No. 1 that there were no dues towards complainantNo. 1.
19. It is stated that complainant is not liable to pay any amount to OP No. 1 as claimed by OP No.1 that too after surrendering the aforesaid vehicle by the complainantNo. 1. Instead the complainant No. 1 is entitled to get the difference of amount from OP No. 1 which they get after selling the vehicle and after adjusting the loan account bearing NO. AZDPR0605020002. Hence the present complaint.
20. Notices were issued to Opposite Parties which were duly served to both the OPs. OP No. 2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 02.08.2022. Right to file Written Statement was closed vide order dated 16.01.2023.
21. Complainant led his evidence by way of affidavit and also filed brief synopsis of his arguments.
22. We have perused the record available before us and arguments advanced by complainantswere heard and judgment was reserved.
23. The main issue which arises for consideration in the present complaint is whether there is any consumer dispute in the present complaint within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
24. As per the averments made in the present complaint and record available before us,in nutshell the case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 purchased a taxi cab which was financed by OP No. 1 and same was to be plied for the customers / passengers provided by OP No. 2 through their mobile app. Complainant No. 2 stood as guarantor for the said vehicle loan for the complainant No. 1.  It is alleged that OP No. 2 failed to provide sufficient number of customers / passengers to complainant No.1 which resulted in bouncing of EMIs of the loan taken from OP No. 1 for financing subject vehicle. In order to get rid of financial crisis the complainant No.1 decided to surrender the said vehicle to OP No. 1. It is alleged that OP No. 1 has not dealt fairly with complainant No.1 by selling the subject vehicle at good price and adjusting sale proceeds towards balance loan amount and return the surplus to complainant No.1.  It is alleged that instead of paying the surplus amount to complainant No.1, the OP No. 1 is demanding Rs. 3,05,937/- from the complainants.
25. The complainantsare seeking relief of declaration that no amount is due against complainant No. 1 to OP No. 1 and pay a sum of Rs. 1.5 Lakh against surplus amount assuming that taxi of complainant must have been sold at reasonable price and disclose all papers regarding selling of vehicle to decide cheating done by OP No. 1 to complainant and to declare that OP No. is indulged in unfair trade practice / deficiency in services , a direction to OP to issue no dues certificate and to pay compensation and cost to complainants.
26. After perusal of the contentions made in the complaint and supported documents it appears that the main issue which needs to be considered In the present complaint case is whether this Commission can adjudicate upon the allegation of the complainant No.1 that car surrendered by him to financer has not been sold at good price in order to clear all pending dues against him and pay him surplus amount as much as of Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
27. In our considered view the since the complainant No.1 admittedly has surrendered his car to OP NO. 1 which was financed by OP No. 1, therefore, unfairness if any committed by OP No.1 selling the same at lesser price as expected by complainant No.1 it outside the scope of “deficiency in services” as such there is no consumer dispute within the meaning of C.P. Act, 1986.
28. It is relevant to discuss the definition of Consumer as provided in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

“consumer” means any person who,— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) 8 [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 8 [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 2 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

[Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]

29. Present case appears for surrendering / delivering the goods for onward sale to third party. Therefore the OP No. 1 acted as an agent for the complainant No.1. Hence the complainants are not consumers under C.P. Act.
30. In the present complaint the complainants havefailed to establish any cause of action in their favour and against OPs which may give rise to a consumer dispute within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
31. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainants failed to prima facie establish any consumer dispute in the present complaint, therefore, present complaint is dismissed.
32. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on15.04.2022.

SANJAY KUMAR                                             RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER