Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

       The Appeal No.A/364/2015 has been filed by the Appellant/OP challenging the judgment and order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Paraganas in complaint case No.330/2014 allowing the Complaint in part  against the Appellants/OPs. 

       The Appeal Nos. A/590/2015 and A/1186/2015, being filed against the order passed by the same Ld. District Forum against the identical nature of Complaints filed by the same Complainant, were given an analogous hearing.

       The facts, in brief, were that the Respondent/Complainant, being an unemployed youth, approached the Appellant/OP No.3 for a loan for purchasing a Lorry to start a business for his own livelihood.  The Appellant/OP No.3, after examining all aspects, advanced a loan, loan A/C No. being CALG21209040017, for an amount of Rs.15,03,218/-.

       The vehicle under model No.LPT2518TC/48 was purchased and registered under No.WB25E/7453.  An Insurance Policy was also initiated in respect of the subject vehicle.  The competent motor vehicle authority issued certificate of registration, certificate of fitness, goods carriage permit etc. in favour of the Respondent/Complainant. 

       As envisaged in the Agreement, the repayment of the entire loan together with interest was to be made at an EMI of Rs.39,700/- in 58 installments within a period of contract w.e.f 15/09/2012 to 05/06/2017. 

       Since the Respondent/Complainant did not receive any idea of repayment status of the subject loan and any copy of the Agreement indicating the terms and conditions under which the said loan was advanced by the Appellant/OP, he, under certain compelling circumstances, stopped repayment.  As continued further, the Respondent/Complainant was made to sign the Agreement without the terms and conditions were read over and explained to him.

       The Respondent/Complainant, subsequently on 22.04.2014, received a Demand Notice from the Appellant/OP wherein immediate payment of an outstanding dues of Rs.15,60,000/- was sought for.  Being astonished by the demand of a huge outstanding, the Respondent/Complainant contacted the Appellant/OP No.3 and explained the reasons for non-payment of EMIs.  The Appellant/OP appeared to be reluctant to accept the allegedly tenable explanation and threatened the Respondent/Complainant of legal steps including repossessing the vehicle if the outstanding dues, as claimed in its notice dated 22.04.2014, was not paid in full.

       Being scared about the fact that the Appellant/OP might resort to take steps for repossessing the vehicle, the Respondent/Complainant filed the Complaint before the Ld. District Forum.  The impugned judgment and order which is under challenged in the instant Appeal arose from the said Complaint case. 

          Heard the Complaint ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

       Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP, while submitting, challenged the maintainability of the Complaint mainly because of the fact that the Complaint was filed against an issue involved with commercial purpose.

       Drawing the notice of the Bench to running page No.2, para 4 of the Complaint, the Complainant claimed himself to be an unemployed youth venturing into the business for earning his livelihood. 

       Similar averment appeared to have been made, as continued, while sworning in affidavit in the Complaint at running page 10.  That the loan was for a commercial purpose became more apparent from the permit—a goods carriage—issued by the competent authority.  The class of permit, as continued, itself was indicative that the vehicle was meant for using for commercial purpose.

       The complaint, as concluded by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP, was liable to be dismissed in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above.

       Perused the papers on record.  Considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate.  The Agreement once signed, its terms and conditions becomes binding upon the parties under the same stoppage of repayment of the loan voluntarily on an imaginary apprehension by the Respondent/Complainant definitely amounts to a departure from the terms and conditions as envisaged in the Agreement of such loan. We, in this context, place our reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in [Bharathi Knitting Company—Vs—DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.] reported in (1996) 4 SCC 794 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a person signing the document containing contractual terms was normally bound by them even though he had not read them and even though he was ignorant of their precise legal effect.

 On the same context, we further refer to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 64 of 2006 [A.V. Cottex Limited—Vs—The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] reported in 2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observe that Insurance policy is a contract between insured and insurer and its terms and conditions are to be considered as such in same spirit in which they are written and agreed upon by parties.

The Respondent/Complainant, in his Complaint had averred that the subject vehicle was purchased for his business for earning livelihood.  The concept of the CP Act is that the claim of any commercial purpose should only be accommodated when the said purpose was related to the earning of livelihood by way of self employment.

In the instant Complaint, the averment towards the earning of livelihood  by way of self employment  was conspicuous by its absence. 

The Complaint cases bearing Nos. A/590/2015 and A/1186/2015 involve purchase of two different vehicles.  It is unbelievable that a person purchasing more number of vehicles runs all the vehicles by himself.  So, the ingredient of the concept of earning livelihood by way of self employment is not there in the instant complaint.

Further, the impugned judgment and order delivers no direction upon the Appellants/OPs towards payment of compensation.  This leads us to assume that the Ld. District Forum has no affirmative findings so far as the existence of any ingredients of deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Appellants/OPs.  In the circumstances, the payment of litigation cost by the Appellants/OPs to the Respondent/Complainant in a Complaint based on an imaginary apprehension of Appellants/OPs’ taking steps for repossessing the subject vehicle, appears to be bit bizarre and accordingly, high handed also.  We, in view of the above, are of the considered view that the instant complaint lacks the merits for being considered as maintainable.

Hence

Ordered

that the Appeal be and the same is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order. Since the cases under Nos.A/590/2015 and A/1186/2015 were given an analogous hearing because of their being identical in nature and character, instant order should apply mutatis mutandis in respect of those cases too.  Accordingly, those cases are also disposed of.