Orissa

Rayagada

CC/307/2016

Sri Kasibiswanath Baliarsingh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Shiram Transport Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Nov 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 307 / 2016.                                                       Date.     6    .     3  . 2019

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Kasibiswanath Baliarsingh,  S/O: Late Parusuram  Baliarsingh, AT/Po: Karlaghati,  PS:Gudari,     Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                        …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Branch  Manager, SREI BNP Paribas, Srei Equipment Finance Co. New Colony, Near Andhra  Bank,  Rayagada(Odisha).

2. The  Regional  Manager,  SREI BNP Paribas Srei  Equipments Finance Ltd.,  Vishwakarma 86, C, Topsia Road (SOUTH), Kolkata- 700  046.                                                                                                                                          .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri  V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps   :- Sri A.K.Samal and  Sri   Suresh Kumar Mohapatra, Advocates.

JUDGEMENT

          The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps to receive E.M.I Rs.2,30,500/-  and release the vehicle TLB 7405 Backhoc Loader inter  alia to pay compensation a sum of Rs.8,20,000/-   for which  the complainant  sought compensation  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

The complainant  filed a  C.C. petition U/S-12 of the C.P. Act  along with  Interim petition  U/S- 13-3(B) of the C.P.  Act  before the forum .  After hearing  this forum admitted the case and passed interim order  Dt. 24.9.2016   against the O.Ps  exparte  not to put the vehicle  Terex TLB-7405 backhoc loader for auction sale without informing and not to go for any arbitration proceedings  to harass the complainant which is under hypothecation belonging to the complainant  and also ordered to release the vehicle after payment of instalment amount a sum of  Rs.2,00,000/- by the complainant within  10 days.

Being aggrieved  against the  Interim order  Dt. 24.9.2016     the    O.Ps  had preferred  appeal before the  Hon’ble State Commission bearing R.P.No. R.P.No.88/2016.    The Hon’ble State Commission  after hearing  on Dt. 30.11.2016   has passed order  and  directed the Opposite  Parties to release the above  vehicle  in favour  of the complainant within 15 days after receipt a sum of  Rs.2,36,000/- from the complainant. Accordingly  the O.Ps have received  D.D No. 017867 Dt. 29.12.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,36,000/-  from the complainant  without any objection and  the O.Ps have  handed over the vehicle to the complainant  on Dt. 25.3.2017  in presence of the witness.

After  receipt of the above vehicle the complainant on Dt. 6.4.2017  filed  another petition before the forum  and prays direct the  O.Ps   to pay   compensation   a  sum of Rs.8,20,000/- as   the  O.Ps had  seized the above  vehicle  through an illegal manner which  can not be encouraged in the  eye  of law.  Hence  this C.C. case. Copies of the above petition has also served on the O.Ps.

On being noticed  the O.Ps  filed written version  through their learned counsel inter alia  challenged  the maintainability of the  petition before the forum. The averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best interest of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                           

         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant was  availed finance  from  the O.Ps  for purchase of TLB 7405 Backhoc Loader.   Further there was no dispute   the complainant   had deposited margin money   a sum of  Rs.5,25,000/- and the  O.Ps had finance an amount of Rs. 17,75,000/-  to the complainant  for  purchase of above loader.  The  complainant had received  above loader from the  Mahaveer  Engineering, Chatrapur on Dt. 8.12.2015. There is no dispute  the  O.Ps had issued  a repayment  schedule, the due date of payment of the loan  i.e. E.M.I. which was starts from  Dt. 8.2.2016 to 8.11.2019   and  mode of payment of  E.M.I @ Rs.49,500/- payable  at monthly  installments for a  period of  46 months with effect from  Dt. 8.2.2016. 

For non payment of  E.M.Is. in due time the O.Ps had  repossess the above vehicle  forceably  on Dt.8.8.2016   without  any intimation to the complainant. After  payment of E.M.Is  Rs. 2,36,000/-  by the complainant to the O.Ps  in shape of   Bank Draft   the above  vehicle  had  been delivered   to the complainant on Dt. 25.3.2017.

The main  grievance of the complainant is that direct the O.Ps to pay  compensation   a  sum of Rs.8,20,000/- as   the  O.Ps had  seized the above  vehicle  through an illegal manner which  can not be encouraged in the  eye  of law

The issues to be decided  in the dispute are:-

1. Whether the  complaint  petition  is maintainable in this  Forum?
2. Whether there is any  deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. If so the nature and quantum of relief to be awarded  to the complainant.

Issue No. 1.

The  O.Ps in  their written version contended that  the complainant had availed the loan  from the  O.P for purchase of  the above loader  during the month of December, 2015, but before availing the said loan  he was  PWD contractor  and he was already  earning his  livelihood  out of the contract works executed by him and he was  doing important business  as  well  from the year 2013.   The O.Ps have filed supporting documents to prove their above contention  i.e. P.W.D. “C” class contractor  License  issued in  favour of the complainant  vide Regd. No. 2200 Dt. 12.4.2013  which was issued by  the  S.E., Southern Irrigation  Circle, Berhampur  which   is   in the file marked as Annexure-I. Further the O.Ps  in their written version contended that  it is crystal as clear that the  complainant had  purchased the above loader in question for commercial purpose for earning  more profit in his business, and not for earning his livelihood. So, the complainant will not come  under the purview of the “Consumer” as per the definition  provided Under Section  -2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

In this connection  the  O.Ps  have  relied citations in the present case which are mentioned here.

The   Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack in  Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2016  pronounced  judgement on Dt.21.10.2016   in the  case  of Sri Laxmidhar  Mallick  Vrs.  Srei Equipment Finance Ltd where   in  the Hon’ble  State Commission  observed  in the  above judement  that  “The petitioner  is a Class-I  Electrical  Contractor and a licece was issued  in his  favour  on DT. 1.2.2013 which was valid upto 31.3.2019, by the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. and EX-officio-Additional Secretary , (Electrical Licensing ) Department of Energy, Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore.  So, it can not be said that he purchased the aforesaid machine to earn his livelihood.  Even if it is  presumed that the petitioner does not engage the machine in question in his  contract work  and also does not give  it on hire to any one still then  he can not come under  the  scope  and ambit of ‘Consumer’. As such, comsumper complaint filed by him can not stand, accordingly, Consumer complaint No. 36 of 2016 stands dismissed.  Once it is dismissed, the Misc. case filed for interim order  also stands dismissed.”

Apart from the above loader in question, the complainant has also possessed another  commercial vehicle i.e. J.D. Tractor bearing No. OR-18-C-4305 which  is also used  by the complainant in his contract work. As the complainant is the owner of 2 Nos. of commercial vehicle, on this ground also he will not be coming under the purview of  “Consumer” under the C.P. Act, 1986.  

In this context the O.Ps have  relied citation it is held and reported in CPR- 2014(1) page No. 567 in the case of Sri Jasobanta Narayan Ram Vrs. The B.M.,  L & T Finance Ltd.,  the  Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed  in  para-9  “ That  as the complainant  in the present case is the owner of  2(two) Nos. of vehicles, he is not a “Consumer” as per the defination provided   under the C.P. Act.

Besides, the  case of the complainant does not reveal  that the complainant himself ply the present loader in question, rather he has engaged a Driver/Operator  for plying the same which   necessarily excludes him from the purview of the defination of “Consumer” as held by the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court of India in the case of  Laxmi Engineering Works   Vrs.  P.S.G. Industrial   Institute  reported in  AIR- SC- 1995 page No.1428” .

Again it is held and reported  in CPR-2012(4) page No. 75 the Hon’ble National    Commission where in observed  “Financier can  repossess vehicle for default in repayment of loan amount”.

Further  it is held and reported in CPR-2014(1) page  No.16 the Hon’ble  West Bengal State  Commission, where   in observed  “Under the Hire purchase agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retains the vehicle  only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of vehicle on the ground of non payment of instalment  has always  been upheld  to be a legal   right  of the financier”

Again  it is held and reported in  CPR-   2013(2)  page  No. 548 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed “ Commercial users can not maintain  consumer complaint”.  

In view of the order passed by the  Apex Court  the complaint filed in the present case before the forum to get compensation is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. As the case  is  not maintainable before the forum we need not discussed other two & three issues.  Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate court.

To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

 

ORDER

 

In resultant the complaint petition     stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

           

            It is held and reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of  charges.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced in open forum today on this      6th    .day of March,  2019  under the seal and signature of this forum. 

 

Member                                             Member.                                                 President