O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Petitioner's case is as follows:<br /> The opposite party is a company incorporated under Indian companies act, carrying on the business of financing. The opposite party had sanctioned a loan for an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- for the purchase of Ashok Leyland made lorry bearing registration No. KL-7R 5256 in the year 1997. The original registered owner of the lorry was one Aliar. Subsequently the petitioner purchased the said lorry and transferred the<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> loan in his name. The said Aliar had paid an amount of Rs. 55537/- on 11..9..1997 against the loan account. The petitioner in addition to that had remitted Rs. 788685/- against the loan account. In the year 2002 the opposite party issued a letter to the petitioner requesting him to settle the loan transaction or renew the agreement. The petitioner approached the second opposite party and they compelled the petitioner to remit some more amount. Petitioner remitted an amount of 2,20000/-. Altogether the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs. 10,64,222/-. According to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- collected is without any basis. So the opposite parties are liable to reimburse the same. After the remittance of the entire loan amount, interest and excess amount the petitioner requested the opposite party to issue hire purchase clearance certificate of the vehicle. But the opposite party had not heed to the demand of the petitioner. So the petitioner issued a lawyers notice on 23..12..2004 to the second opposite party. As a reply to the said notice the opposite party issued a letter demanding Rs. 94092/- as full and final settlement of the loan account. The petitioner issued another notice on 30..8..2005. The opposite party issued a reply demanding Rs. 94708/-. Finally on 14..7..2006 the opposite party with help of hired goondas attempt to reposses the vehicle from the custody of the petitioner. The act of the opposite party is clear deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice. So the petitioner prays the Forum to issue direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- with 18% interest from 23..12..2004. Till realisation and also to issue hire purchase clearance certificate to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks direction of the Forum to restrain the opposite parties<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> from repossessing the vehicle. The petitioner claims Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss. He also claim Rs. 5000/- as cost. <br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version . Opposite parties contended that petition is not maintainable. According to them the petition is only filed with an intention to evade payment of loan instalment. The opposite party contented that as per the hire purchase agreement between hirer and lender for getting the clearance certificate hirer has to comply all conditions stipulated in the agreement which is signed by both parties. According to the opposite party petitioner is a defaulter. Since the petitioner has committed default in payment he is liable to pay over due amount. No amount is paid by the petitioner in time. According to the opposite party as on 17..8..2006 an amount of Rs. 110545/- was due to the opposite party. The opposite party contended that the transaction between the petitioner and opposite party is based on a hire purchase agreement. So the relation between the petitioner and opposite party is not consumer relationship and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether petition is maintainable or not ?<br /> ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> Iii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence of the petition consists of Ext. A1 to A7 documents and the affidavit of the petitioner, opposite parties evidence consists of their affidavits and Ext. B1 and B2 documents.<br /> -4-<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The contention with regard to maintainability raised by the opposite party is that the dispute involved in this petition is not a consumer dispute. The counsel for the opposite party argued that in this case the financer does not render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in order to support the argument the learned counsel place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in Ram Deshlahara Vs. Magma leasing Ltd. Reported in 2006 CPJ 247. In the said case the Hon'ble National Commission observed that under a higher Purchase transaction the financer does not render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Hon'ble National Commission in Sheela Kumari Vs. Tata Engineering & locomotive Co. and other (reported in 2007 II CPJ 92) observed that breach of terms of hire purchase cannot be treated as deficiency in service within the perview of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The petitioner produced a lawyer notice, dated 23..12..2004 the notice is marked as Ext. A1. He produced another lawyers notice issued by him to the opposite party dated 30..8..2005 and the said notice is marked as Ext. A4. On perusel of Ext. A1 and A4 it can be seen that the petitioner through this lawyer demanded for issuance of a higher purchase clearance certificate for his vehicle. The relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the opposite party to issue hire purchase clearance certificate. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in Ext. A2, A3, A6 and A7 the opposite party admits that the transaction is a loan transaction. The opposite party produced the copy of the R.C book of the vehicle the said document is marked as Ext. B2. In page No. 12 of Ext. B2 the additional registering <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> <br /> authority made endorsement with regard to hypothication agreement so, considering the evidence and admissions made by the petitioner in his petition and Ext. A1 and A4 document. We are of the opinion that the transaction of the petitioner and opposite party is a hire purchase transaction.<br /> The word 'Hire' is defined in Blacks law dictnoary as 'compensation for use of a thing in otherwords hire is a bailment in which compensation is to be given for the use of thing. The word 'bailment' is defined in S-148 of the Indian contract Act as delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose upon a contract returned or disposed of according to the direction of the persons delivering them. So, we are of the opinion that the vehicle purchased by the petitioner is under a hire purchase agreement, then the petitioner is a mere bailee and as such the dispute involved in this petition does not come under the definition of consumer dispute defined in the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Point No. 2 & 3<br /> In view of the findings in Point No. 1 the petition is dismissed. This order will not preclude the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedy available to him. No cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of April, 2008.