CONSUMER   CASE  NO :-    04/2021  

JUDGMENT   AND   ORDER

                     The present case has been instituted  by  complainant  Sri  Tarun  Kumar  Nath  against  Opposite Party  Cholamandalam  Investment  &  Finance  Company  Ltd.  stating the  facts  that the complainant for his livelihood  purchased  one Traveller vehicle bearing registration  no.-AS 24/C-4944 and approached the  O.P.  Finance Company  for refinance of the aforesaid Traveller vehicle and accordingly on 18-03-2020  a  loan  cum hypothecation  agreement was executed between the complainant and the  O.P.  Finance Company and  the monthly  EMI  was fixed at Rs.14,000/-.  That after  execution of the aforesaid agreement lockdown for  COVID-19  was  declared throughout  India from  22^nd  March’ 2020  and  the  Reserve  Bank Of India   instructed all  the Banks,  finance Companies,  NBFCS to allow  moratorium for three months for payment of any loan outstanding  from  March’2020.  Accordingly,  the complainant submitted an application/ filled up form  to the  O.P.  for availing  the facilities  of  moratorium  upto 31^st  May’ 2020.    Thereafter also the complainant availed the facilities of extended moratorium  upto 31^st August’ 2020.    After  the moratorium period   ended on 31^st August’2020    the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.18,587/- only  as  EMI  including other charges for the month of September’2020.   That on 24/09/2020 the aforesaid  vehicle  was kept parked  at  Sonai Road,  Silchar,  opposite  Holycross  School  and the  O.P.  No.-1  by engaging his agent had taken away the said vehicle without any intimation and since then the said Traveller vehicle  is under the illegal custody of the O.P.  Finance  Company.  According to the complainant,   for non-plying of the vehicle he has  sustained great loss .  He has also suffered mental pain & agony.  Under the circumstances,  the complainant has prayed for passing an award of  compensation for Rs.2,20,066/-  towards payment made to driver and the handyman,  compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment & disservice and also cost of litigation etc.

                                                    The Opposite Party  Nos. 1,2 & 3, the Finance Company   jointly filed written statement  stating,  interalia, that there is no cause or reason for filing this case,  that the case is not maintainable, that the case is bad for defect of parties  etc., etc.  The  O.Ps.  have denied all the allegations made against them.  It has been stated by the answering  O.Ps.  that  as per the  agreement of  loan availed by the complainant against refinance of the alleged Traveller  vehicle  the complainant is required to pay Rs.14,000/-  per month as monthly instalment to the  O.P.  Finance Company until the entire loan amount is refunded.  That the  1^st and 2^nd instalment  fell due on 15/04/2020  &  15/05/2020 as the complainant did not make any prayer for obtaining moratorium.  Thereafter the answering  O.Ps. due to COVID-19   pandemic  provided moratorium facility to the complainant for the months of  15/06/2020  to  15/08/2020 and complainant enjoyed the same.  Further version of the  answering O.Ps.  is that  as  2  nos of instalments became overdue so several oral demands were  made  to  the  complainant  but as he failed to make payment so  on  03/09/2020  letter was issued to the complainant and the guarantor of the loan  mentioning  sdpecifically that if the complainant fails to make payment within the stipulated period of the call letter then the answering  O.Ps.  will be bound to invoke clause  11(11)  of the loan agreement.  According to the  O.Ps. , after  receipt of the said call letter the complainant paid only one  EMI  on 14/09/2020  and as the complainant did not clear the entire overdue so the answering  O.Ps.  became compelled to invoke clause  11 (11) of the loan agreement and repossessed the vehicle on 24/09/2020 by observing all necessary formalities.  It   is further stated that  on  25/09/2020 the answering  O.Ps.   issued   pre-sale letter to the complainant and requested him to get back the possession of the vehicle by making payment of Rs. 3,16,589/-  but the complainant   instead of making payment filed this case with ulterior motive to cause harassment and financial loss to the  answering  O.Ps.  Under the circumstances it is prayed for dismissal of the case with compensatory  cost.    

                                                In support of the case  complainant  Sri  Tarun Kumar Nath submitted  his  evidence on affidavit  as  PW-1    and  exhibited some documents.   On  the other hand,  from the side of  Opposite  Party Finance  Company evidence on affidavit  of one  Sri  Soumen  Biswas,  Area Sales  Manager  has  been  submitted   as  DW-1 and  also some documents have been exhibited.    Thereafter  both  sides  have also submitted written argument in addition of oral argument put forward at length by the learned counsels of  the  respective  parties.  Perused  the  entire evidence on record.  Let us  now appreciate the evidence below.

                                                   In his evidence as PW-1  the complainant has  reiterated the same facts as stated in the complaint petition.  It has been stated by  PW-1  that  O.P. nos. 1 to 3 are the Finance Company carrying its business in the name  and style ‘ Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.  ( in short  CIFCL )  and from the said Finance Company he took refinance  against  his purchased Traveller vehicle bearing Registration no.- AS-24C/4944 and accordingly on 18/03/2020  a loan-cum-hypothecation  agreement was executed and monthly  EMI  was fixed at Rs.14,000/- . Further version of  PW-1 is  that after  execution of the aforesaid agreement lockdown for the COVID-19  was  declared throughout  India from  22^nd  March’ 2020  and  the  Reserve  Bank Of India   instructed all  the Banks,  finance Companies,  NBFCS to allow  moratorium for three months for payment of any loan outstanding  from  March’2020 and   accordingly,  the complainant submitted an application/ filled up form  to the  O.P.  for availing  the facilities  of  moratorium  upto 31^st  May’ 2020.    Thereafter the  moratorium  period was  again extended upto 31^st August’ 2020 and PW-1 filed application for availing the same.  According to  PW-1,  after  the moratorium period   ended on 31^st August’2020    he  deposited an amount of Rs.18,587/- only  as  EMI  including other charges for the month of September’2020.   But  surprisingly  on 24/09/2020  when the aforesaid  vehicle  was kept parked  at  Sonai Road,  Silchar,  opposite  Holycross  School   then  O.P.  No.-1  by engaging his agent had taken away the said vehicle without any intimation and since then the said Traveller vehicle  is under the illegal custody of the O.P.  Finance  Company.  It has been claimed by  PW-1 that  for non-plying of the vehicle he has  sustained great loss .  He has also suffered mental pain & agony.  On  16/10/2020  he issued legal notice  to the  O.Ps.  and thereafter the O.P. no.-2  sent a call letter dated 03/09/2020  asking for full and final payment including principal amount  and other charges amounting to Rs.3,19,677/-  which, according to   PW-1,  is quite absurd for him tp  pay.  PW-1  has  also exhibited   several documents  vide  Ext.-1   to  Ext.-8  and  Annexure 1 & 2.

                                    On the other hand, perusal of the evidence of  DW-1   goes to show that  availing of  refinance  vehicle loan by the complainant from the  O.P.  Finance  Company against his Traveller vehicle on condition of payment of instalment  at the rate of Rs. 14,000/-,  availing of   moratorium facility by the complainant  against said loan from the month of 15/06/2020  to  15/08/2020  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic period and taking of the possession of the vehicle  are  not disputed in the case.  But the submission of DW-1  is that  as  2  nos of instalments of the complainant became overdue so several oral demands were  made  to  the  complainant  but  he failed to make  any payment  for which the  O.P.  Finance Company   issued  final call letter  dated  03/09/2020 to the complainant and the guarantor of the loan  mentioning  specifically that if the complainant fails to make payment within the stipulated period of the call letter then the  Financer  Company  shall be bound to invoke clause  11(11)  of the loan agreement.  According to   DW-1  after  receipt of the said call letter the complainant paid only one  EMI on 14/09/2020  and as the complainant did not clear the entire overdue amount so the answering  O.Ps.  became compelled to invoke clause  11 (11) of the loan agreement and thereby repossessed the vehicle on 24/09/2020 by observing all necessary formalities.  It   is further stated that  on  25/09/2020  one  pre-sale letter was issued to the complainant requesting him to get back the possession of the vehicle by making payment of Rs. 3,16,589/-  but the complainant   instead of making payment filed this case with ulterior motive to cause harassment and financial  loss to them . To substantiate his  averments  DW-1  has exhibited documents  vide   Ext.-A  to  Ext.-E. 

                                                     Both the parties have submitted  written arguments.   In  addition,  the learned counsels of the respective parties  submitted at length during the course  of oral argument.  In their written argument the O.P.  Finance Company  has  specifically stated that the complainant  can not get relief in this case as the  status of the complainant does not come within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’.   It has been submitted by the O.P.  side  that  in  the instant case the complainant took finance of the vehicle  i.e.,  Traveller  Bus  for commercial purpose and moreover the complainant is not a professional driver.  He has not produced any document to  show that at any point of time he himself  plied the vehicle  or  he is solely dependent upon the income generated from the said vehicle.  Further version of the answering  O.Ps.  is that it  is the claim of the  complainant in the case that  he used to engage driver for plying the vehicle.    The complainant side has also failed to discard the  above  submission of the  O.Ps.      On the other hand,   as per provision of   section  2 (7) of the Consumer  Protection  Act 2019  the definition of ‘consumer’  does not include a person who buys  or obtains any goods  for resale  or for  any commercial purpose.    In  this connection  the  learned counsel for the  O.P.  Finance Company has also  cited a  case law of the Hon’ble  Apex Court   between   Laxmi  Engineering Works  Vs.   P.S.G.  Industrial  Institute  reported  in  1995  AIR  1428;  1995  SCC(3)  583.  In the said case Law  while discussing  on  section  2(d)(1)  of the  Consumer  Protection  Act 1986 and  regarding  exclusion matter it has been observed by the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in para  (12)  that   “…………………’commercial  purpose’- a case of exception to an exception.  Let us  elaborate :   a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys  a  typewriter  or a  car for typing others’ work for consideration or for  plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the  typewriter/car for a commercial purpose.  The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations  purchase of goods for  ‘commercial  purpose’  would  not  yet  take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’.  If  the  commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose  of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment,  such purchaser of goods  is yet a  ‘consumer’ .  In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi  himself,  he does not cease to be a consumer.  In other words,  if the buyer of goods uses them himself,  i.e.,   by self employment, for earning his livelihood,  it would not be treated as a  ‘commercial  purpose ‘   and he does not cease to be a consumer  for the purpose of the  Act …………..”  Nowhere in the case record it has been averred by the complainant that  he  earns money by plying the  alleged  vehicle by himself. There is no dispute on the point that the alleged  vehicle being Traveller Bus is a commercial vehicle.  On the other hand there is no claim  from the complainant that he commercially uses the alleged vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.  Under the circumstances, it clearly comes out from the materials on record that the complainant can not be said to be a consumer  within the meaning of definition of ‘ consumer’  provided in the  Consumer Protection  Act.

                                                   In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in the case.  Accordingly,  the case stands dismissed on contest against the  O.Ps.  No costs.    The judgment is delivered  under our seal and signature  on this  28^th day of  February’2023.