15/01/16

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in CC 6 of 2013 allowing the case on contest against OP No.1 and dismissed ex parte against OP No.2.  OP No.1 was directed to hand over all necessary documents relating to the vehicle in question, if any, to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of the order, in default Rs.50/- per day will be imposed on them till actual compliance.  In addition the Complainant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh within one month, in default interest @ 10% p.a. will accrue till realisation.

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he purchased a XYLO E4 car from OP No.1 through hire purchase agreement.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.8,33,650/- out of which the loan amount was Rs.5 lakh and there were 23 EMIs @ Rs.24,608/-.  The Complainant made down payment of Rs.3,63,508/-.  The OP No.1 delivered the vehicle in September 2012 at the office of the Complainant.  From the price list supplied by OP No.1 the Complainant came to know that the life time tax (road tax + registration charges) was Rs.87,395/- and the Complainant expressed his willingness to that effect.  Accordingly, the Complainant paid Rs.87,500/- towards life time tax.  The Complainant received the number plate bearing registration no.WB 12C 2619 registered with RTA, Howrah. In spite of receiving the amount of Rs.87,500/- the OP No.1 did not deliver the tax token of the said car to the Complainant and without tax token the Complainant could not ply the vehicle.  For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant opted for one time tax and not life time tax.  It is contended that the tax token was delivered and the balance amount was handed over by the Appellant to the Respondent/Complainant by cheque, but the Respondent refused to accept.  It is contended that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and, therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the signature of the Complainant was obtained in some papers by the OP and the vehicle was purchased for own use and occupation for the Complainant. 

            The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has submitted that no order was passed against Respondent No.2 by the Learned District Forum. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides.  From the papers filed by the Appellant it appears that in the application form exercising option for payment of life time tax/one time tax it appears that the Complainant opted for one time tax and put his signature thereon.  From the materials on record it further appears that the tax token in respect of one time tax has already been delivered to the Complainant.  The contention of the Respondent/Complainant that because of non-delivery of the tax token the Complainant could not ply his vehicle, is not acceptable. 

            Secondly, it appears from paragraph 2 of the complaint that the Complainant is a businessman and he runs a business under the name and style ‘M/s Sree Krishna Manufacturing Co.’. In paragraphs 13 and 14 it has been averred that due to non-availability of tax token the Complainant could not ply the vehicle and he purchased the vehicle for his personal use and to gain more in his business.  There is no mention in the petition of complaint that the Complainant runs the business for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Since the Complainant is engaged in business and he purchased the vehicle for earning more gain in his business, he cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.  The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.

            The Appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment is set aside.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.