Order No. - 31                                                                                                       Dt.-22/02/2016

F I N A L   O R D E R

 Shri Asoke Kumar Das, President

 Complainant’s case in short is that he purchased a one Tata Nano STD BS-4 bearing engine no.273MPF104BXYK18923, Chesis no.MAT6I2207CK818508 on 26/05/2012 from Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd.(O.P.3) taking financial assistance from TATA Motors Finance Limited (O.Ps. 1 and 2) for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment. O.P.3 delivered him the said vehicle alongwith temporary registration of the vehicle. On 03/01/2013 O.P.3 received back the papers and temporary registration from him on promise that permanent registration certificate and other credentials will be sent to him within 07 days. O.Ps. 1 and 2 have not delivered him the permanent registration certificate after expiry of 7 days and for this he could not ply the vehicle. He couldn’t pay inatallment for certain months for the year 2013 due to sudden financial crisis. He went to the office of the O.P.2 in October 2013 with a view to clear all arrear installments but O.P.2 refused to provide him the statement of his account. In October 2013 O.P.1 came to his house and threatened him to take physical possession of the vehicle forcefully and since then O.P.1 and 2 are threating him to clear his dues. He also asked O.P.3 to assist him in the matter but O.P.3 denied.  Hence this case.

   All the O.Ps. have contested this case by filing separate Written Version wherein they have denied and disputed the claims and contention  of the complainant with prayer for dismissal of the case with cost.

           The specific stand of O.P.1 and O.P.2 is that the complainant took loan from them to purchase the said vehicle and he has not repaid the loan as per terms and conditions of agreement and for this O.P.1 referred their dispute to Arbitrator at Mumbai. The complainant didn’t appear before the Arbitrator despite service of notice and that the Ld.Arbitrator has heard and disposed of that Arbitration proceedings number TMFL/47716/2014 on 24/01/2014 and passed award on 10/06/2014 against the complainant Dipankar Roy and as such this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to entertain this case.

           The specific stand of O.P.3 is that the complainant is not a consumer, he is defaulter and he has filed this case just to escape the liability of repayment of his loan and that the dealer has performed his duty of registration and handed over all documents to complainant.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the case maintainable both law and fact?
2. Is the complainant a consumer?
3. Are the O.Ps. liable for deficiency in service and /or Unfair Trade Practice as alleged?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

   All points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

   Seen and perused the pleading of both the parties which are supported by Affidavits, the documents annexed and the Written Argument filed by both the parties.

           After due consideration of the materials on record, i.e. the petition of complaint, the Written Version, Documents and Written Arguments filed by both the parties and the argumnents advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both parties we find that the complainant has filed this case claimimg himself as consumer taking advantage of the Sec2(d) Explanation. In paragraph one of his petition of complaint he has stated that he purchased the vehicle in question from O.P.3 taking financial  assistance form O.Ps 1 and 2 for the purpose of earning his livelihood , by means of self-employment. But he could not produce his driving licence or a chit of paper to show that he himself drived the vehicle in question at the time of purchase and even after that. That apart the complainant has clearly stated in his affidavit which is part of his petition of complaint (paragraph 6) that his occupation is service. Therefore it is clear that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and not for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. So the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P.Act 1986 and as such the case is not maintainable  as per provision of C.P.Act 1986.

               Furthermore we find from the petition of complaint and the W/V filed by O.P.3 that the O.P.3 gave the temporary registration of the vehicle to the complainant soon after his purchaseof the vehicle and the vehicle plied till 02/01/2013 and he took no positive steps thereafter to collect permanent registration of his vehicle in question  and that he paid no installments rather he defaulted in payment of some monthly installments in 2013 as per terms and conditions of agreement signed in between he and the financer i.e. O.P.1 and 2. For this reason O.P.1 TATA Motors Finance Limited was compelled to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as per arbitration clause of the agreement for settlement of dispute and the complainant despite receipt of notice of that Arbitration proceedings no. TMFL/47716/2014 didn’t appear before the Ld.Arbitrator and as a result Ld.Arbitrator has disposed the said arbitration proceeding in favour of the claimants TATA Motors Finance Limited on 24/01/2014 and passed the award on 10^th June 2014 copy ofwhich was sent to the complainant Dipankar Roy. Inspite of that the complainant has filed this case on 07/05/2014 only with a view to harass the O.Ps. Furthermore reliefs claimed by the complainant are full of ambiguity and beyond the provision of C.P.Act 1986 as this Forum cannot pass any order of adinterim, temporary and mandatory injunction as prayed for by the complainant and only Civil Court is competent to pass such type of injunction orders.

               In this view of the matter we find and hold that this case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and he is not entitled to get any relief in this case and this case deserves dismissal.

           All points are disposed of.

           In the result the case/application fails .

           Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

         that the case/ application stands dismissed on contest but in the circumstances we make no order as to cost. Complainant’s petition u/s 13(3-B) of the C.P.Act 1986 filed alongwith the petition of complaint also stands rejected.

                  Let copy of this final order be supplied free of cost forthwith to the parties/ their Ld. Advocates/agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by general post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumer Protection Rules 1987.