STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 15 of 2015
Farhat Abbas, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Serajul Haque, Resident of Mohalla- Arya Nagar, Ward No. 12, Gopalganj, PO, PS & District- Gopalganj
… Appellant
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. At D.G.P House, 4th Floor, Old Prabha Devi Road, Mumbai- 400025
2. The Regional Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Bihar and Jharkhand, Adharshila Complex, Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 25
3. The Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Bihar and Jharkhand, Adharshila Complex, Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 25
…. Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Nesar Ahmad
Counsel for the Respondent No. : Adv.
Before,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Dated 06.02.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of Complainant Farhat Abbas for setting aside the judgment and order dated 19.11.2014 passed by District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Patna in Complaint Case no. 472 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has dismissed the Complaint Case filed by complainant.
Complainant/appellant had filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Patna stating therein that complainant had purchased a Tata LP 709 Star Bus Deluxe for which loan was provided by the Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and hire purchase agreement was entered between the parties on 16.06.2006. Complainant paid earnest money of Rs. 1,27,000/- and total finance of Rs. 9,92,000/- was provided by the finance company and complainant had to repay the loan amount with interest in equal monthly installment. The vehicle was insured by the insurance company and was also registered and permit was also granted and road tax also stood paid.
Complainant has further stated that on 26.07.2007 the vehicle met an accident causing damage to the vehicle and complainant got repaired his vehicle on his own expenses pending insurance claim as such there was no default in making payment of installment however the finance company repossessed the vehicle on 22.09.2007. Complainant thereafter approached the District Consumer Forum and during pendency of case on making payment of Rs. 20,000/- the vehicle was released on 15.11.2007. The vehicle was again repossessed by the finance company on 11.03.2008 as complainant again defaulted in paying the monthly installment and vehicle was auction sold on 31.01.2009.
Written statement was filed on behalf of opposite parties in which it was stated that complainant had entered into loan cum hypothecation agreement with opposite party no. 1 on 16.06.2006 for one LP-709 Model vehicle with Registration no. BR-28A-6033. Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle from Tata Motors Ltd. for commercial purposes.
Cost of vehicle was Rs. 9,67,944/- for which down payment of Rs. 1, 17,944/- was made by complainant and Rs. 8,50,000/- loan was provided by the finance company upon which interest of Rs. 2,15,900/- was payable and insurance premium was Rs. 66,000/- and as such Total contract value came to Rs. 11,31,900/-. The complainant was to repay the loan amount in 47 monthly installments. The first installment was of Rs. 25,600/- and remaining installment was of Rs. 24,050/- per month.
The vehicle was commercial and was purchased for commercial purpose and no averment was made that same was purchased for self employment and earning livelihood. Complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, as such complainant case was not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum.
Complainant defaulted in paying the monthly installment and in terms of hire purchase agreement, the vehicle was repossessed and as complainant did not take any steps to pay the outstanding dues as such the vehicle was auction sold on 30.01.2009 to recover the outstanding dues.
The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that as the vehicle was purchased under hire purchase agreement and in terms thereof if there is any default in paying the monthly installment, the finance company can repossess the vehicle and auction sell it to recover the loan amount and dismissed the consumer complaint case.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.11.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Patna in Complaint Case no. 472 of 2007 complainant has preferred this appeal.
Heard counsels for the parties.
In the complaint petition averment has been made by the complainant that complainant is educated unemployed and to earn his livelihood he has purchased the bus under the hire purchase agreement. Opposite parties have not controverted said statement nor have placed any material on record to show that complainant has more than one bus from which it can be presumed that bus has been purchased to earn profit and said transaction was only for commercial purpose as such it can be inferred that bus was purchased to earn livelihood and as such complaint case was maintainable before the consumer forum.
It is not disputed that complainant had defaulted in payment of installment as such in terms of the hire purchase agreement financer took the possession of the vehicle on 22.09.2007 and thereafter complainant filed a complaint case before the Consumer Forum and on making payment of the outstanding dues the vehicle was released in favour of complainant on 15.11.2007 during pendency of complaint case. However, complainant again defaulted in making payment of installments and the vehicle was again repossess by the financer but outstanding dues was not paid by the complainant as such the vehicle was auction sold to recover the outstanding dues against complainant.
The financer remains the owner of the vehicle taken by complainant on hire, on the condition of option to purchase, upon payment of all hire installments. The hire installments are charges for use of the vehicle as also for the exercise of option to purchase the vehicle in future. The hire purchase agreement is an executory contract of sale conferring no right in rem on the hirer, until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. The financer continues to be owner of the goods under a hire purchase agreement. The hirer simply pays for use of the vehicle with an option to purchase it. Where the hirer had defaulted in payment of installments and the agreement provides that the financer was entitled to repossess the vehicle, in case of default, the repossession of the vehicle does not amount any deficiency in service.
For the reasons as stated above there is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
