The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Chief Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Chennai and O.P No.3 is the Administrative Officer, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant, being a retired military personnel had purchased one second hand truck bearing registration No.OR-09E-1197, in order to maintain his family members for a consideration amount of Rs.4.42,000/-, for which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was financed by the O.Ps on refinancing scheme @ 12% interest per annum. Thus, the O.Ps informed the Complainant about repayment schedule being Rs.14,441/- towards 1st installment and subsequent 26 installments @ Rs.13,660/- to be repaid in 27 monthly installments. Accordingly, the Complainant has deposited Rs.3,79,263/- within 30.11.2014. But, during sanction of loan, the O.P No.1 had taken some signed blank cheques of UCO Bank, Ganeswarpur Branch from the Complainant as security. As per term and condition, the Complainant has paid the entire loan amount along with interest and the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to issue No dues certificate on 30.11.2014, but the O.P No.1 instructed the Complainant to come in second week of January, 2015. The O.Ps threatened to drag the said truck to their custody and possession instead of issuing No dues certificate. The name of the financier is still recorded in the R.C Book of the said vehicle issued by OMVD, Balasore. Prayer for issuance of no dues certificate of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-09E-1197 and return back blank signed UCO Bank cheques by the O.Ps along with compensation towards mental agony.

                    2. Written Version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.Ps have further submitted that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as per established principles of law, thus the relationship between the Complainant and the O.P is that of borrower and lender. And as per cause-15 of the Agreement, the complaint is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for Arbitration, where all the disputes, differences claims and questions, what so ever arising out of  the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. Clause-15 of the agreement is read as “All disputes at Arbitrator’s only”. The O.Ps have also submitted that the said vehicle in question is a heavy commercial  one, hence the Complainant can’t be treated to be a “Consumer” as defined in section-2 (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act,1986. And as per section-2 (d) (i)(ii) (Explanation) “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, thus, good bought must be issued by the buyer himself by employing himself for earning his livelihood. Thereby, the Complainant has not prima facie established the existence of any such fact that he was/is not in a position to maintain livelihood and that the said truck was his only source of income. Moreover, the present Complainant has not come to Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The Complainant has filed this case in order to get rid of the loan liability and to escape from the legal proceeding going to be initiated against him. It has been stated that a duty cast upon the borrowers to repay the installments in time. If the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time frame, it will disturb equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the needs of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the installments by the defaulter may stand on the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance. The Complainant has also not paid all the EMIs regularly showing an arrear of Rs.1,12,509.88 paise as per statement of account dt.09.04.2015, for which NOC is not issued to the Complainant. The O.Ps have also submitted that “this case being an outcome of account disputes between the Parties, neither this Forum nor the State Commission have jurisdiction to decide such disputes has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha in Consumer Case No.43 of 2010, copy of order has been filed in this case record (Annexure-2). To sum up, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

                    3. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

(ii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable in eye of Law.

(iii) Whether there is a cause of action to file this case.

(iv) Whether the Complainant has cleared all his dues in respect of loan availed from the O.Ps.

(v) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    4. In view of the above disputes, both the Parties have filed documents in support of their claim. Perused the same. It is undisputed fact that the O.P No.1 has financed on the basis of hypothecation agreement and provided a sum of 3 Lakhs loan to the Complainant, basing which he has purchased a second hand Truck bearing registration No.OR-09E-1197. After availing loan, according to the Complainant, he has already repaid the required amount of Rs.3,79,263/- both towards Principal & interest as agreed upon. But, in spite of several request, the O.Ps are not issuing No dues Certificate and relevant documents to the Complainant and not correcting the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle of the Complainant. According to the O.Ps, the Complainant is very irregular in repayment of loan, for which a sum of Rs.1,12,509.88 paise is outstanding against him, for which No due Certificate and the relevant documents has not been returned by the O.Ps to the Complainant. The Advocate for Complainant in support of his argument has relied upon the authority reported in 2012 (3) CPR-314 (N.C) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vrs. Jumma Khan, where in direction has been given by the Hon’ble National Commission for issuance of No dues Certificate. But the fact of that case is not similar to the present case in hand. In that case full amount has been paid. Similarly the Complainant has relied upon another authority reported in 2006 (Supp-II) OLR-871 in the case of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Birendra Kumar Behera & others in respect of issuance of Clearance Certificate to the Petitioner. Similarly, the Adv. for O.Ps has relied upon authority reported in III (2006) CPJ-247 (N.C) in the case of Ram Deshlahara Vrs. Magma Leasing Ltd., where in it is held that under a hire-purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Petitioner is, thus, not a Consumer. The Hon’ble State C.D.R Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in Consumer Case No.43/2010 in the case of Sushanta Kumar Acharya Vrs. Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. held that while Finance Company is claiming more regarding issue of N.O.C and Complainant is stating that he is to pay the Lesser amount, this being purely accounts matter between the Parties, so the Consumer Forum or the State Commission can’t decide this case. In the instant case, there is dispute between the Parties regarding financial payment as mentioned earlier.

                    5. So, in the circumstances, on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by above authorities as discussed, now this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant is not a Consumer under provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Consumer case is not maintainable, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this Forum and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-        

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 23rd day of May, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.