O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
1 Seeking compensation of Rs. 12,36,000/- being the loss of earnings pertaining to two vehicles bearing Nos. AP37X 7449 AND AP37X 7269 and also for mental agony, the complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of C.P. Act.
2 The cast of the complaint in brief is that he purchased two goods carriage heavy motor vehicles AP37X 7449 AND AP37X 7269 by the finances provided by the opposite parties. He also used those vehicles for transporting materials at Reliance Industries Ltd., Gadimoga and some works at Yanam. He faced a lot of problems in the transport business, inspite of that he was making payments towards loan obtained from the opposite parties. Inspite of those part payments the loan amount was mounted. The transport works at the above mentioned places were also closed. Thus he intended to place those vehicles for contract work at Hospeta, Karanatka State. He informed the same to the opposite parties. The opposite parties approached in the month of March, 2010 and they informed him that they launched a new scheme and they would reschedule his loan by obtaining new agreements so that he would get further one year or two years to discharge the debts. Accordingly the opposite parties rescheduled the above 2 loans. The purpose of rescheduling is to provide one or two years time to discharge the loans. At the time of rescheduling the cost of the vehicle was morethan Rs. 15,00,000/- each.
3 It is also his case he received information from the opposite parties that they seized the above said vehicles on 07.05.2010 at Hospeta in Karanatka State due to the alleged non payment of monthly instalments. The action of the opposite parties resulted loosing of earnings and income to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per day on each vehicle. Since the amount due to the opposite parties was less than value of the vehicle seized the loan amount of the vehicle automatically stood discharged.
4 Later he issued a notice to the opposite parties. Thus the act of opposite parties amounted to unfair trade practice. According to him two days ago the opposite parties sold away the vehicles to third parties and realized more than Rs. 15/16 lakhs on each vehicle. Thus he sought the above said compensation.
5 Opposite parties filed their written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them the complainant is not at all a consumer as defined under Section 2[d] of C.P. Act as he is using the vehicle for commercial purpose and earning huge profits. He is also having some other commercial transport vehicles in his name and he purchased the vehicles for usage of commercial purpose.
6 It is also their case this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant executed agreement at Tadepalligudem, West Godavari, availed loan there and their office is located at Tadepalligudem. Thus this Forum has no jurisdiction.
7 It is also their version they filed Arbitration Cases 478/2011 and 479/2011 before the Sole Arbitrator, Rajahmundry against the complainant and obtained an award on 24.09.2011. The complainant suppressed those facts. Thus they sought dismissal of the complaint on the above said ground.
8 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer as defined under C.P. Act?
2. Whether this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. If so, whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation?
9 Point No.1: To buttress his contention the complainant filed his chief affidavit and exhibited 7 documents. Ex. A1 is some receipt showing taking possession of vehicles by the opposite party but in the chief affidavit the complainant described it as a telegram received from the opposite party. A perusal of Ex.A1 goes to show that it is not at all issued by the concerned department and it is hand written by some body, Ex.A2 is the office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to 2nd opposite party, Ex.A3 is acknowledgment, Ex.A4 is photo, Ex.A5 is C book of the lorry bearing No. AP37X7269, Ex. A6 is certificate cum policy schedule and Ex.A7 is driving license.
10 As against this evidence the Branch Manager of the opposite party furnished his chief affidavit reiterating the allegations in the counter and exhibited 4 documents Exs.B1 to B4 which are agreement executed by complainant dated 25.03.2010, receipt issued by opposite party to complainant for Rs.3,50,000/-, receipt issued by opposite party to complainant for Rs. 1,50,000/- and letter issued by complainant to opposite party on the even date.
11 As seen from the entire allegations in the complaint it appears the complainant purchased those two transport vehicles for carrying on business and earning profit. No where it is alleged that those Lorries were purchased for earning his lively hood. Even the documents exhibited by the opposite party would undoubtedly indicate that the complainant purchased those two vehicles by obtaining loan from the opposite parties for carrying on transport business. Thus it is very clear the complainant doesn’t fit within the definition of consumer under Section 2[d] of C.P. Act. Thus this point is answered against the complainant.
12 Point No.2: In this regard the opposite parties contend that the entire transaction took place at Tadepalligudem, West Godavari and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
13 As seen from the addresses furnished by the complainant pertaining to the opposite party their office is located at Tadepalligudem, West Godavari. The version of the opposite party that the loan was availed at Tadepalligudem and the agreement was executed is not denied by the complainant.
14 The complainant also has not alleged anything with regard to this Forum having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Thus practically no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.
15 Point No.3 & 4: In view of the findings rendered under points No.1 & 2, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence these points are also answered accordingly.
16 In the result, in view of the finding rendered under point No. 2 holding that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint the complaint is returned to be presented before proper Forum.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 26th day of March, 2015
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : Sri Kanumuri Ramakrishna Raju
For opposite parties : Sri Valvala Venkateswararao, Branch Manager
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex. A1 Some receipt showing taking possession of vehicles by the opposite party
Ex.A2 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to 2nd pposite party
Ex.A3 Acknowledgment
Ex.A4 Photo
Ex.A5 C book of the lorry bearing No. AP37X7269
Ex. A6 Certificate cum policy schedule
Ex.A7 Driving license
For opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Agreement executed by complainant
Ex.B2 Receipt issued by opposite party to complainant for Rs.3,50,000/-
Ex.B3 Receipt issued by opposite party to complainant for Rs. 1,50,000/-
Ex.B4 Letter issued by complainant to opposite party
Sd/-xxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
