(Delivered on 03/11/2018)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.         The following two appeals are filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur.

 a.      The appeal No. 15/15 is filed against the order passed in complaint No. 188/2012, dated 10/12/2014, dismissing the complaint.

 b.      The appeal No. 16/15 is filed against the order passed in complaint No. 187/2012, dated 6/12/2014 dismissing the complaint. The complainants in both the complaints are the same and the opposite party in the complaint is also the same. Hence we decided to club them together, hear them and pass a common order upon them.

 2.      The complainant herein filed identical complaints, on the same day of 27/12/2012 with almost similar figures and complaint against the opposite party (in short O.P.) and made a similar request that the OP be declared to have given the deficient service to the complainant.   Identical prayed is made in both complaints  to  direct  the OP to provide the complainant the detailed account, agreement contract, running policy and the repayment details in case of truck number MH-34/ M-2363 in complaint 187/2012 and truck number MH-34/M-2364 in complaint No. 188/2012.

           The complainant further requested that the OP be directed not to hinder the use of the truck by the complainant and not to repossess the truck without appropriate orders from the Court in both the complaints. The complainant further made a request to provide him Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment and provide him Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint separately in each complaint.

 3.      The complainant in complaint No. 187 made a complaint that he took a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the OP for truck number MH-34/M-2363  on 22/02/2007. He was required to repay the loan in 47 installments of Rs. 23,113/- totalling to Rs. 10,86,311/- till 22/12/2010.  Similar facts in complaint  No. 188/2012 in respect  of  truck No. Mh-34/M-2364.

 4.      The complainant in the complaints submitted that he did not take any loan from the OP. He paid the installments through cash or through bank. The complainant further complained that the O.P. again on 21/10/2010 showed that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- and started recovery of  the loan amount of Rs.9,51,572/- The complainant therefore submitted that the act of the OP of showing the complainant to  have taken additional loan has committed deficiency in service and hence filed a complaint with a prayer as referred above.

 5.      The complainant also filed a second complaint which is similar in verbitant in complaint Number 188/2012 except that the truck referred is MH-34/M-2364 and also demanded the similar relief from the Forum.

 6.      The Forum listed two complaints separately as above and issued notice when the O.P. appeared and filed the written versions similar in verbetant as below. 

a.      The  opposite party (in short O.P.) countered the complaint  in complaint  No. 188/2012 stating that  the complainant  had taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- and was required  to repay  it back  with  interest  total in to Rs. 10,86,311/-. However,  the complainant  on 02/02/2008 again  took a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the O.P. and gave a demand promissory  note. He also took insurance loan of Rs. 17,100/- on 14/12/2009 and he demanded an additional loan on 08/10/2010 to the O.P. in his complaint No. 188/2012.

b.      The O.P.  therefore,  based on the application  calculated the outstanding  amount including  truck loan, bullet loan, insurance loan, totaling to Rs. 18,78,708/- out of which  the complainant repaid  Rs.7,36,042/- and  made a  new  agreement  for a loan of  Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence, was given a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 21/10/2010. The loan  again   piled  up to Rs.6,87,722/- of which  the complainant  repaid  Rs.261053/- and  insurance loan  and  additional  Rs.9,525/-. However, he did not pay the remaining loan from July-2012. Therefore an outstanding amount of Rs.4,43,504/- is to be taken from the complainant. The complainant has suppressed the entire information of the loan. Also the agreement stipulates that any dispute would be tried before the arbitrator.  Hence,  the complaint cannot be heard by the learned Forum .

c.       The O.P.  in complaint  No. 187/2012 submitted  similarly that the complainant  had taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- for an additional  truck  on 22/07/2007 which was to be also paid  back in 47 installments  totaling  to Rs. 10,86,311/-.  However, on 02/02/2008 he again took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P. by providing   promissory  note and took  Rs. 17,100/- insurance  loan  on 14/12/2009.  He again demanded an additional loan on 08/10/2010. Therefore, the O.P.  recalculated  the unpaid loan of the truck , additional  loan, insurance loan which  total came to  Rs. 17,08,843/-. Out of which  the complainant  repaid  Rs. 7,36,042/- and  made a new agreement  to pay the remaining  loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- by taking a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/-.

d.      The O.P. further submitted that  the loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- piled  up to Rs. 6,80,140/- out of which  the complainant  repaid  Rs. 2,77,325/- insurance loan  and  additional Rs. 7620/-. Hence,  he is still to repay Rs. 4,22,584/- from  June -2012. The O.P. claimed that the complainant  suppressed the correct information  and also  the contract stipulates  the  dispute to be  placed before  the arbitrator  as per the contract. Hence,  the complaint cannot be heard by the learned Forum.

7.      The learned Forum heard both  the parties in separate complaints  No. 187/2012 and 188/2012 and referring to  the National Commission judgment  passed in the case of   Jasobanta Narayan Ram Vs. L&T Finance  Co. Ltd. , decided on 04/02/2012  published  at  II (2014) CPJ 87 (NC). In which  the Hon’ble Commission held that  loan raised for the vehicle  is a commercial  transaction  and when  two trucks were  purchased  from the loan  raised from the bank and when  the complainant has not given any clarification  about the use of the operation of other truck, the complainant is not a consumer. Thus,  relying on the judgment  passed by the National Commission the learned Forum passed two separate orders and dismissed the complaints  as supra.

8.      Aggrieved against the orders the original complainant filed  appeal No. 15/2015 in complaint No. 188/2012 and  appeal No. 16/2015 in complaint No. 187/2012, hence, is referred as appellant. The original O.P. who are similar are referred as respondents.

9.      Advocate Mr. Pandhare appeared  on behalf of the appellant and advocate Mr. Sachin Jaiswal appeared for the  respondent. We heard both the advocates and perused the evidence.

10.    The advocate of appellant submitted that the learned Forum relying on the non applicable judgment  that on the ground of not  submitting the  purpose of the second truck is given by  the appellant dismissed the complaints . However, the complaints in respect of both the trucks were in front of the learned Forum. Hence, the order passed by the learned Forum being not with judicious   reasons deserves to be set aside.

11.    The advocate for the respondent submitted that the appellant   has taken repeated loan   and did not pay them. Therefore became a defaulter and to prevent the appropriate legal action by the respondent had filed these separate complaints.  Also  the purchase of two trucks on the same day indicates that  he has a business  of  transport and is not using  the truck for  self avocation  to support his life.

12.    The  advocate of the respondent  further  submitted that the  contract papers  of loan  were  properly given  to the  appellant  and  he is well aware of the various  accounts   maintained  by the respondent  and the amounts  defaulted by him. The advocate for the respondent further submitted that the loan agreement stipulates the settlement of any dispute before the arbitrator. Hence, the learned Forum should not have taken the cognizance of the complaint.  However, the learned Forum has passed the correct order which deserves to be confirmed.

13.    We find that the appellant filed two complaints with similar prayer regarding   request  to prevent  the  respondent from seizure of his truck and  to provide him the details of the account.  We find that  the  appellant  purchased  two trucks with consecutive numbers  of  2364 and 2363 on the same day dated 22/02/2007. However while filing the complaint separately,  he did not refer or gave the information  in the complaint regarding  purchase of another  truck on the same day but  claimed that  he has not taken  any other loan from the respondent.

14.    We further  find that  the  appellant  has not given  the exact purpose  and the  operating  person  of the another  truck  purchased by him with the loan  when he claimed that  he has purchased  the truck in both the complaints for the purpose of self employment. As  both  the complaints   were filed  before the Forum and appeals were filed before us it came to the notice that the appellant  has purchased two trucks in his name  on the same day.  If  the trucks are purchased  for self employment then the purpose  and the  person  who would be driving  the second truck certainly needs to be provided.

15.    We thus find that  the  appellant  rather than  filing one complaint  by giving  the detail information of loan  filed  two separate complaints showing  that  he was maintaining  separate accounts of  each truck  and was  paying their installments separately indicating that  he was maintaining  separate account of each truck indicating that  the truck was  not  driven  by the appellant as his  self employment.

16.    It clearly shows that  the appellant  has a business of  running  a transport  and  is not  using  the truck for the  purpose of self employment.  We thus find that  the reasons recorded by the learned Forum and the  reference  made by it to the judgment of the  Hon’ble National Commission stands aptly  applicable to the  present  appeals which we have clubbed together  to consider them on one platform. 

17.    We therefore find that the orders  passed by the learned Forum do not deserve to be interfered. Hence,  we confirmed  them. Order below.

ORDER

i.        Appeal Nos. 15/2015  and 16/2015 stand dismissed.

ii.       Parties to bear their own cost.

iii.      Copy of  the order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.