DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 122  of  2021

 

Smt. Mallika Deb,

W/O- Sri Sudeep Deb,

Howra Basti, 

Near Forest Range Office, Agartala, 

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, 

District- West Tripura,

Pin -799001. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The General Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Limited,

Head Office, TMFL, Mumbai Branch,

Maharastra- 400001.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

TMFL, Agartala, Melarmath Br.,

Oppt. Of Madanmohan Mandir,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District- Tripura West- 799001. ............Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Learned Advocate. 

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Dipankar Sarma,

   Sri Prasenjit Das,

   Sri Debasish Das, 

   Learned Advocates.

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   20/02/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

Smt. Mallika Deb (here-in-after referred to as “the Complainant”) set the law in motion by presenting a complaint petition U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short “the Act.”) complaining against the General Manager, Tata Motors Finance Limited, Head Office, Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as “the O.P.1”) and the Branch Manager, TMFL, Melarmath Branch, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as “the O.P.2”).

 

2. The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant availed of a loan from O.P.2, the financier Company, towards her purchasing a Tata Zest XM Vehicle amounting to Rs. 8,70,000/-. In accordance to the Contract Details issued by the O.P.1, the loan is to be repaid in 59 monthly instalments @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is averred that the Complainant paid altogether 32 monthly installments towards re-payment of the loan till 02.10.2021. But the O.P.1 released a revised Contract Details on 26.10.2021 wherein the number of monthly instalments paid by the Complainant has been indicated as 30 instead of 32. It is also averred that the number of total monthly instalments of the loan has been fixed upwardly by revising it to 67 from 59 thereby recording an increase of the contract value of loan from Rs. 8,70,000/- to Rs.9,15,756.16. Being aggrieved on account of the discrepancy arose in computing the correct monthly installments paid and increasing the number of overall monthly installments of the loan along with enhancing the loan liability, the Complainant filed this complaint petition. The Complainant prayed for a relief of Rs. 45,000/- (amount of the increased loan liability as per the revised Contract Details). Hence this case.

 

3. The O.P.1 and O.P.2(O.Ps) contested the case by submitting written version by refuting and disproving the charges made by the Complainant. The O.Ps, amongst other things, submitted that the Complainant has affirmed her profession as housewife and, therefore, she is not driving the vehicle on her own. Which means that she has been using this vehicle for commercial purpose and does not come within the definition of a consumer, as defined in the section 2(d) ii of the Act. The vehicle was used by her for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood. As a reference, they have mentioned the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in ‘Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute’ cited in 1995-AIR-SC-1428.

In regards to the discrepancy in monthly installment paid and raising of the contract value of loan liability, it has been submitted that during COVID pandemic period, the Complainant availed a monthly loan instalment payment moratorium for 5 months. Allowing of the deferred payment facility caused to accrue additional interest burden and due to which the contract value has been increased to Rs.  9,15,756/-. It is agreed by the O.Ps that during the moratorium period, the Complainant paid 2 monthly installments and, the amount paid has been lying as unrealized with them. The entire amount can be adjusted towards the liability of future installments and charges pertains to the loan account.  

4. The Complainant has submitted her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. One Mr. Pritam Choudhury, Area Legal Manager has submitted his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit on behalf of O.Ps. Now, in this case, the points to be decided as follows:

i) Whether the Complainant falls in the category of a ‘Consumer’, as per the definition laid down under the relevant provision of the Act.?

ii) Whether the O.Ps are guilty of being deficient in providing appropriate service?

iii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation, as sought for?

5. Both the parties have submitted written arguments. They have set forth their pleadings orally also. During oral arguments, the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint and also the evidence of the Complainant, as adduced. The Ld. Counsel of the O.Ps argued against the case putting emphasis on the points, as outlined in the evidence submitted on behalf of O.Ps.  

6. We have made a close scrutiny of the materials on record and on evaluation of the same it transpires that it is an admitted fact that the Complainant took the loan from O.Ps for purchase of a vehicle. It has also come to our light that the Complainant discloses her profession as ‘housewife’ in the complaint petition. But, she did not divulge anything about the identity of the driver of the vehicle in her complaint petition. It also remains unstated in all the documents submitted by her in the subsequent stages of proceedings of the case. It is quite striking and disturbing to note that the Complainant altered her profession to disclose the same as ‘business’ in the evidence of her, so submitted. No justification whatsoever has been provided by the Complainant for her disclosure of different profession in different occasion. This does not appear to us to have been an approach made by the Complainant to this Commission with clean hands.

7. Now, on the point whether the Complainant falls under the definition of ‘consumer’ in terms of the section 2 (7) (ii) and (ii) of the Act. are:

Section 2 (7) (i) says “ Consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid …………………………………………… , but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”  

Section 2 (7) (ii) says “Consumer means any person who-hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid ……………………………………….., but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose”. 

For the purpose of this clause, the ‘Explanation’ provided under (a) of the Act states – “the expression ‘commercial purpose’ does not include of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment”.

 

8. In the instant case, it appears that the vehicle has been purchased for commercial use. The Complainant has specified that such vehicle has been purchased for earning livelihood of his family. But, the Complainant remained silent to provide any information about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. In the matter of ‘Explanation’ provided for the purpose of the section 2 (7) of the Act., the expressions ‘used by him’ and ‘by means of self-employment’ do impose significant limitations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the points of these expressions in Laxmi Engineering Works v PSG Industrial Estate cited in 1995-AIR-SC-1428 and explained, inter alia, that a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying as public carrier by himself would be a consumer. As against this, if the same is plied exclusively by another person then he would not be a consumer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the Cheema Engineering Services v Rajan Singh case - CA No.14787 of 1996 that the purchaser includes the family members also in explaining the expression ‘self-employment’.   

9. In the instant case, the Complainant did not disclose anything either by way of submitting evidence on affidavit or bringing in documentary evidence regarding plying the vehicle by herself or by any of the members of her family. In the perspective, we give a thoughtful consideration that the Complainant has failed to make herself to be qualified as consumer in terms of the section 7 (2) of the Act. As the point 4 (i) here-in-above has been decided against the Complainant, we are not required anymore to get into the merit of the case. 

 

10. In the result, the complaint petition in the present form is not maintainable. Hence the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable. However, no order is passed as to cost.

 

The complaint, therefore, stands disposed of. Supply certified copy of the order free of cost to the parties.

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.