The case record is posted today for hearing. Neither the complainant nor her Advocate is present and no step is taken on her behalf. Advocate for OP is present & files hazira. On repeated calls, none respond on behalf of the complainant. Hence, hearing of the case could not be taken up.
As it appears from the case record, the complainant was absent since 17.01.2020 to till today except 25.02.2020. Due to the long absence of the complainant, the hearing of this case impaired. It is seen that the OP made his appearance and filed written version. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to pass order considering the merit of the case.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it is seen that the complainant had purchased one vehicle contner bearing Registration No. OD-01S-0024 by investing Rs.2,05,000/- and the OP financed Rs.24,16,500/- including interest thereon, which would be repaid by the complainant in 55 instalments @ Rs.43,936/- per month. On purchasing the chassis, the complainant incurred huge amount of expenditure for making the body and for insurance. For the last time, the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- and Rs.65,000/- through cheques, but the cheques were bounced due to insufficient of funds. Thus, the OP threatening to seize the vehicle.
On the other hand, OP has stated that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and the relationship between the parties is that of borrower and lender. Thus, the case of the complainant is not maintainable. That apart, the vehicle in question is a commercial one. The vehicle purchased by the complainant is not used by herself, by employing herself for earning her livelihood, rather, used the machine for earning livelihood in a commercial business. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
Upon careful perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and the documents submitted on their behalf, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the vehicle as purchased by the complainant is a contner. One has to purchase it for the purpose of business, not for his livelihood. In 2015(4) CPR-148 (N.C) in the case of Sunny & Others -vs.- Rajesh Tripathy, Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi have been pleased to observe that financing and advancement of loan does not fall within purview of facility in connection with banking, transport, etc. as mentioned in Section 2(o) of C.P Act, 1986 and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. Further, the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi in III (2006) CPJ-247 (N.C) in the case of Ram Deshlahara -vs.- Magma Leasing Ltd. have been pleased to observe that under a hire purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of C.P Act and the petitioner is thus, not a consumer. Moreover, OP has the right to recover his dues and any demand for payment of dues cannot be treated as threatening. Further, exercising legitimate right to recover the dues by a financer cannot be treated as deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Under the hire purchase agreement, it is the financer, who is the owner of the vehicle and the person, who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a Bailee/ trustee. Therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financer. Besides, the plea of the complainant that her cheques got bounced, cannot be a cause for taking action against the OP, rather, it is a cause of action for the OP to initiate criminal proceeding against the complainant.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the rulings of the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. Consequently, the case of the complainant deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the case of the Complainant is dismissed on merit.
