Order No. 2    date: 12-11-2014

Record is put up for passing orders in respect of admission as well as on the petition filed u/s 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A simple complaint has been lodged before this Commission mainly alleging that the OPs are threatening to repossess the three vehicles illegally from the Complainant without any Court order, which will cause severe breach of peace/tranquility and law, along with a prayer to supply the Complainant with a copy of the Agreement and/or the   updated Statement of Accounts, of which the Complainant is totally in dark.

There is no substance in this case.  It is found that the Complainant paid certain amounts to the OPs on different dates, viz, 12-06-2014, 24-09-2014, etc., and also the Complainant has filed a payment details in respect of the payment made by him and two others namely Priyes Singh and Birendra Singh.  Interestingly, there is a legal notice to the Pooja Roadways Co. Pvt. Ltd. in this matter dated 16-09-2014 for default of payment to the OPs in respect of 3 vehicles, demanding payment, along with some other stipulations including legal repossession and sale of the vehicles. 

There is nothing on record that the Complainant ever demanded copy of the Agreement and Statement of Accounts from the OPs before filing this case, stating non-receipt of the same.  As for the perceived threat, the threatening part is not corroborated - either by way of any document or by any police report to that effect. Above all, against the backdrop of service of legal notice upon the Complainant, allegation of illegal repossession and sale of the vehicles falls flat.  There is nothing on record that, in the meantime, the Complainants have cleared the outstanding dues and/or replied to the notice.  Moreover, the complaint itself shows that the transactions were of commercial nature, which obviously do not attract the beneficiary provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no case of any latent or patent deficiency in service in the matter.  There is no deficiency in service whatsoever.  On the face of it, the sole motive behind moving this purported complaint appears to be to stall the repossession of the vehicles in any way, and nothing more and nothing less.  For apprehension, for breach of peace/tranquility, if any, he should knock the door of a Criminal Court and/or police.  For others, he should go to a Civil Court, if any merit.

Accordingly, this case is a misnomer one and so, not admitted and rejected as such.  Consequently, the petition u/s 13 (3B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also stands rejected.