This case has been arising out of the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.Ps named above u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Tata LPT 2515 from one Laxmi Cheetri bearing Registration No. AS - 17B/2743, on 16/01/2018. The sale has been negotiated and finalized at Rs. 8,26,000/-. The said owner Laxmi Cheetri agreed to obtain NOC from finance and transfer the ownership in his favour. The above mentioned vehicle was hypothecated with SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. Out of negotiation money of Rs. 8,26,000/- the complainant paid Rs. 4,73,000/- on 16/01/2018 to pay the Laxmi Chettri and the rest balance will be paid to SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. in 38 installments from 05/02/2018 to 05/03/2021. The complainant paid Rs. 7,46,465/- although the loan amount was 4,80,000/- only payable to O.P Nos. 1 and 2. That the fitness of the above mentioned vehicle was expired on 01/11/2019 and since then the vehicle was not plying. Due to failing of fitness the aforesaid vehicle did not ply till date since the last 23 months although the complainant has paid the entire amount to Laxmi Cheetri and the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 as the vehicle is not plying the complainant is ready to return back the vehicle and also claim Rs. 22,97,270/-.
The O.P Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version. O.P No. 3 did not turn up after receiving the summons. So, the case is heard ex-parte against O.P No. 3.
According to the written version the O.P Nos. 1 and 2 they have stated that this complainant is not a consumer as per 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act that the complainant filed the complaint without any cause of action. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands. The specific case is that the SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. had entered into a hypothecation cum loan agreement No. ALIPRO705290001 with Smt. Laxmi Chettri for providing financial assistance to her for purchasing a MHCV Truck Tata LPT 2515 bearing Registration No. AS17B-2743. According to loan agreement executed on 29/05/2017 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- was sanctioned and the agreement value approved with interest and other charges on loan amount of Rs. 7,62,342/- which is payable in 46 monthly installments. The first installment was to be paid on 29/05/2017 and each subsequent payment was to be made on or before the 5th day of every succeeding calendar month. The hypothecation cum loan agreement has expired its tenure but still active within an arrear of outstanding of Rs. 5,03,286.20/-. The certificate of registration of the vehicle is recorded in the name of Laxmi Cheetri as owner of the vehicle. They further stated that the loan was taken the Laxmi Cheetri and the hypothecation is stand in the name of Laxmi Cheetri under SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. The complainant is not the borrower or the guarantor of the hypothecation cum loan agreement and no amount has been paid by the complainant as claimed according to the provision of law. During the hypothecation the borrower of the agreement shall not lease, transfer etc. to any person without consent of the financing company. They further stated that his complainant has no cause of action and he is not the recorded person in the office of O.P Nos. 1 and 2. No loan was sanctioned in his favour or he did not pay any loan amount to the O.P Nos. 1 and 2. They have prayed for dismissal of this case.
We have perused the materials on record meticulously. Considering the above pleadings the following issues are necessarily come out to consideration to reach just decision of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.12 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as he prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Considering the nature and character of the case all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point No. 1:- This case has been filed u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has claimed that he is a consumer as he has purchased one truck from Laxmi Chettri and paid Rs. 8,26,000/- out of which he has paid Rs. 4,73,000/- to Laxmi Cheetri and the rest amount was paid to the SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. The O.Ps raised objection and stating that the complainant is not the consumer according to the provision of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. They have stated that Laxmi Cheetri purchased the above truck with a financial assistance from SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. and one hypothecation cum loan agreement was executed in between Laxmi Cheetri and SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. In their office record the complainant is neither borrower nor the guarantor of the said loan agreement. No sale deed has yet been executed in between the complainant and the Laxmi Cheetri according to them complainant can not a consumer in this case and there is no cause of action in this case.
After hearing of the parties and also perusal of the documents we find that one Laxmi Cheetri purchased a Tata LPT 2515 bearing Registration No. AS17B-2743 with a financial assistance of SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. One loan agreement cum hypothecation agreement has been executed in between in the Laxmi Chettri and the company. It appears that the complainant has claimed that he has purchased the said vehicle from Laxmi Cheetri but from his documents we find that the sale deed was not executed or registered in between the complainant and the Laxmi Cheetri or SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. There is one general power of attorney executed by Laxmi Chettri appointing the complainant as constituted attorney to act and to ply the said motor vehicle on her behalf. It also appears form the said copy of power of attorney that the said truck which is under hypothecation of the SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. was agreed to transfer to the complainant with an amount of Rs. 8,26,000/- and the complainant has paid Rs. 4,73,000/- as down payment to Laxmi Cheetri and the installments of the rest amount shall be paid by the complainant as the attorney of the Laxmi Cheetri. It also appears from the documents that the statement of accounts of the said loan amount stands in the name of Laxmi Cheetri and the complainant has paid the installments in the name of or on behalf of Laxmi Cheetri in the said financial company. If that be show then we find that this complainant is not the consumer of SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. According to the provision of section 2(d) he is the consumer under law with Laxmi Cheetri. Laxmi Cheetri is not made a party in this case and no claim has been initiated against her. In all the records filed by the parties it appears including the RC book that there is no name of complainant in any where either in the RC book nor in the record of SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE LTD. The complainant acted as a attorney on behalf of the Laxmi Cheetri and he has deposited the amount to the bank in the name of Laxmi Cheetri on behalf of the Laxmi Cheetri. No title has been passed over the said vehicle upon the complainant on the basis of power of attorney. According to the said power of attorney everything is done by the complainant was on behalf of the Laxmi Cheetri and if any wrong is acted from the side of the O.Ps then the Laxmi Cheetri is the right person to claim the award as she is a consumer with this O.Ps. The complainant is not at all a consumer under the provision of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act against the O.Ps. If he is not a consumer then he will not get any benefit from this case and the case is not at all maintainable in law.
That a part in the complaint petition there is no cause of action it is very much unclear from the complaint petition that what the complainant wants to say and why he has claim Rs. 22,97,270/- from this O.Ps. The entire complaint petition is vague without clarifying the reason of claim at all. So, as the complainant is not a consumer as per law. The case is not at all maintainable in law.
Point Nos. 2, 3 and 4:- As this case is maintainable in law as discussed above we do not find any reason to discuss the above points and to decide the same.
After considering the above discussions we find and hold that the complainant is not the consumer according to the section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act against the O.Ps and the case is not maintainable as per law.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and same is dismissed on contest. No costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
