Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President
Heard Adv. Rajeev Tripathi on behalf of the Complainant.
[2] The Complainant is a businessman engaged in the business of LPG transportation. The Complainant had taken loan from the Opponent for purchase of six tippers vide Vehicle Loan Agreement Nos.7000015017, 7000015018. 7000015019, 7000015022, 75000015023 and 7000015024 upon hypothecating said vehicles. Registration numbers of these vehicles are KA-25-C-1251, KA-25-C-1279, KA-25-C-1248, KA-25-C-1243, KA-25-C-1416 and KA-25-C-1419 respectively. These vehicles were purchased by the Complainant for the purpose of transportation and supply of LPG Gas cylinders on contract basis for the different gas companies. Thus, loan availed is for his commercial and business purpose by the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that said loan has been repaid. However, yet the Opponent is raising demand and, therefore, the Complainant has approached this Commission with a prayer that the Opponent may be directed to update the status of the Complainant’s profile with CIBIL showing the Current Balance and Over Balance owed by the Complainant as nil against the Company’s name of the Opponent with immediate effect and to pay to the Complainant an amount of `1,00,00,000/- towards damages for the loss of business, goodwill and reputation in the market as well as towards compensation for mental torture and harassment. Since the transaction involved and service provided is in respect of commercial transaction the complaint is not maintainable. It would have been entertainable had it been showed and averred by the Complainant that said commercial activity is for self-employment and income from the said activity is used exclusively for livelihood of the Complainant. Such statement is not appearing in the complaint. Secondly, six vehicles being purchased the Complainant himself cannot ply these six vehicles and for that purpose he generates the employment of various drivers and also other staff. The Complainant simplicitor is a contractor and, therefore, the activity cannot be said to be a self-employment for earning livelihood and apart from that this cannot be exclusive principal source of his livelihood. Viewed from any angle the complaint is not tenable. Secondly, demand prayer of the Complainant to direct the Opponent to pay an amount of `1,00,00,000/- towards damages for the loss of business, goodwill and reputation in the market as well as towards compensation for mental torture and harassment cannot be a subject matter of a ‘consumer dispute’ and a direction as per prayer clause (b) of the complaint cannot be given by a Consumer Forum. With these observations, we find that there is no merit in the complaint and we accordingly reject the complaint in limine. Order accordingly.
Pronounced and dictated on 12th June, 2012
