The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Lakhwinder Singh prays for the necessary directions to the opposite parties not to dispossess him from his tractor trailer and opposite parties be restrained from demanding illegal amount from him. The opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment, financial loss, mental tension etc. alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and to reduce the monthly instalments on low rate of interest.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got financed a tractor trailer bearing No.PB-06-N-2358 from opposite parties having chassis No.MAT44212BAE03157 and its engine No.11E63131449 from the opposite parties in the year of 2011 for the total amount of Rs.18,91,331/- alongwith interest @ 7% P.A. He was paying the instalment from time to time. He had paid first instalment on 19.5.2011 for Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter paid Rs.40,000/- on 24.4.2011, Rs.40,000/- on 3.9.2011, Rs.40,000/- on 17.11.2011, Rs.40,000/- on 6.12.2011, Rs.40,000/- on 17.01.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 16.2.2012, Rs.58,700/- on 3.4.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 10.5.2012, Rs.20,000/- on 14.8.2012, Rs.40,000/- on 26.2.2013, Rs.40,000/- on 15.4.2013 etc. as shown in the statement of account. Thus he has paid Aprox. Rs.14,00,000/- to the opposite parties.  He has further pleaded that he has incurred huge amount on the tractor trailer for maintenance since finance till now. He had spent Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- in every month on the maintenance of the tractor trailer and earned Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. He has no source of income for livelihood. He is earning his bread by driving said tractor trailer. He is suffering from some financial loss, therefore, he could not deposit one or two instalments on time, the opposite parties approached him and started issuing threat to him that they will confiscate the tractor trailer without due course of law as he has not deposited the two or three instalments on time, hence they will get the possession of the tractor trailer without adopting the legal process. Two months ago, the officials of the opposite parties approached him and tried to take the illegal possession of his tractor trailer, but with the intervention of the local people he saved his tractor trailer from taking possession by the opposite parties. Thereafter he approached the opposite parties at their head office at Pathankot and requested them to stop their threats but officials of the opposite parties did not behave properly with him. He has next pleaded that he requested the opposite party to reduce the monthly instalments, but opposite parties still demanding more than Rs.14,00,000/- from him, which is against the law and the demand of the opposite party is illegal, null and liable to be declared void. The acts and conducts of the opposite parties are tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.        Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the vehicle in question is being used by the complainant for the commercial purpose and earning profits only and there is an arbitration agreement between the parties to raise the dispute before the Arbitrator only, as such, the jurisdiction of this Ld.Forum is barred to the complainant.   On merits, it was admitted that a tractor trailer bearing No.PB-06-N-2358 Model Tata LPS 4018 has been got financed from the opposite parties at the prescribed rate of interest by the RBI, time to time. It was incorrect that the rate of interest was ever fixed as low as@ 7% per annum. The complainant had paid only Rs.13,15,602/-upto 15.7.2014. The complainant is habitual defaulter in paying the loan instalments to the opposite parties and Rs.14,26,047.73 is due as arrears against the complainant upto 30.9.2014 + future interest and other leviable charges. It was incorrect that the complainant had ever approached the opposite parties and they have ever issued any threat to the complainant to confiscate tractor trailer without due course of law or they will get the possession of the same without adopting legal process. So, the question of requesting by the complainant to the opposite parties does not arise. It was also incorrect that the complainant had paid Rs.14,00,000/- to the opposite parties and they have ever tried to take the possession of the tractor trailer of the complainant. It was admitted that the principle loan amount was Rs.18,91,331/- plus interest and other leviable charges to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties in 55 monthly equal instalments upto 5.1.2016 without any default. The amount of Rs.14,26,047.73 plus future rate of interest is still due as arrears against the complainant and he is liable to pay the same. The complainant is using the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and earning huge profits only. Thus there is no deficiency in service or alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.    Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sahib Singh, Branch Manager of opposite parties Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the complainant has ignored to specify the fall-in category of his ‘business-work’ undertaken with the financed ‘Tractor-Trolley’ and whether he is plying the same for earning his livelihood through self employment so as to attract the exception-requisite for ‘consumer’ eligibility under the Act and also to avoid ‘fall-out ouster’ under the clause of ‘commercial purpose’. However, that for sure negates the ‘maintainability’ of the present complaint that somehow shall not be affected merely by the ‘inclusion’ of arbitration clause in the agreement with ‘invocation’ yet to follow suit. Without going further into the deeper details of the complaint it transpires that ‘settlement of accounts’ pertaining to the Vehicle Loan (in question) has been the prime issue in dispute and that again shall not fall under the limited ‘spectrum’ of ‘consumer complaint’ under the provisions of the Act; that by design and default revolve around ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair/ restrictive trade practices’ etc.

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any worthwhile legal ‘merit’ in the present complaint under the Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

9.    Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, the file be consigned to the records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

MAY,18 2015                                                            Member

*MK*