<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN , PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint for realization of Rs.16,800/- from the opp.party and termination paper in respect of vehicle bearing Reg.No. KLI 6310, compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: <br /> <br /> The complainant is the owner of a tourist bus bearing Reg. No. KLI-6310 which is operated as a contract carriage. The complainant has availed a Hire Purchase loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the 1st opp.party hypothecating the bus. Prior to the availing of the loan the 4th opp.party received Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant the loan amount was to be repaid in 36 instalments in addition to that insurance deposit of Rs.17,000/- was also to be paid along with the instalment till April 1996. The loan instalments were paid without default from 1.1.96 to 11.2.98. t he vehicle cannot be used for service as the same was sent for repairs. Therefore the loan instalments were delayed in November 1997 the vehicle has been repaired and when the complainant approached the opp.party 3 for a renewing the insurance. But opp.party 3 refused to issue notice on the ground that the defaulted instalments must be paid. They have also threatened in the complainant saying that the repossessing the vehicle. On 30.1.98 the complainant was told to deposit some money and for remaining amount to issue cheques and accordingly the complainant issued 2 cheques bearing Nos. 860942, 860943 of the Federal Bank Punalur Branch. It was agreed cheque leaves will be returned when the amount as per the sum is paid. The complainant has also paid the insurance premium since the complainant could not be ply vehicle during the season he sustained damages to tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Thereafter the opp.parties compel the complainant to closed the hire purchase agreement. He approached the 2nd opp.party who told him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- to the addition to amount already paid. The complainant refused to pay that amount as he has not liable to pay that much amount since there was no other way the complainant on 13.6.98 entrusted the opp.party D.D worth Rs. 1,85,000/- . The opp.party thereupon agree to issue termination papers within 2-3 days. But they did not issue the termination paper as agreed. Thereupon the complainant issued an advocate notice on 2.7.98 for which they do not sent any reply but filed a complaint against the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.party 1 to 4 filed a joined version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.. The complainant is lnot a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. Since the transaction between the complainant and opp.parties are Hire Purchase agreement and not a loan transaction. The Forum has not jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The transaction were entered into at Coimb atore and Trivandrum and therefore this Forum has not territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The dispute of the complainant is purely Civil nature. For which he ought to have filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and for a declaration . The allegation that the 4th opp.party received Rs.10,000/- from the complainant is false and hence denied. The allegation that the 3rd opp.party received Rs.1,85,000/- and assured that he would give Hire Purchase termination letter within two or three days are false and hence denied. The complainant has not remitted the entire amount due to the opp.parties as per the conditions in the hire purchase agreement. For realizing the balance amount the opp.party has taken steps and do not issue the hire purchase termination letter. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed since he own huge amount as arrears to the opp.parties. The complainant is solely responsible for the delay caused due to the filling of this complaint false denied. The opp.parties did not receive Rs.60,000/- in excess and therefore there are not liable to refund the amount. The complainant has taken possession of the vehicle from the opp.parties agreeing and undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.2,81,250/- in 36 instalments commencing from 1.4.95 ending with 1.3.98. In addition to the said instalments the complainant has agreed to pay additional Hire charges at the rate of 3% per month per instalments from the due date till the actual date of payment, in case the instalments are defaulted. The complainant is a chronic defaulter. The opp.parties are not liable to compensate the complainant for the period during which the bus was kept in the workshop for re-modelling. In fact the opp.parties 1 and 2 have agreed to settle the amount the complainant pays a total sum of Rs.2,07,000/- immediately. Accordingly the complainant remitted Rs.1,85,000/-on 13.6.98 leaving a balance of Rs.22,000/- since the complainant has not lpaid the settled amount the concession given by the opp.parties are revoked as per reply dated 21.7.98 the sum of Rs.50,523/- outstanding as balance. The opp.parties never to agreed to settle the matter for Rs.1,85,000/- as alleged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 to P12 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 to D4 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> This case as originally disposed by this Forum as per order dated 31.3.2000. The matter was taken up in appeal before the State Commission.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points<br /> <br /> The transaction between the complainant and the opp.parties is under a Hire Purchase Agreement is not disputed. Ext. D11 is the Hire Purchase Agreement entered into between the parties and the execution of Ext. D8 is not disputed. The learned counsel for the opp.parties argued that since the transaction is not a loan transaction the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2 [1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act. The hirer under the Hire Purchase Agreement is holding the vehicle as a bailee and not as the owner and complainant failed to pay the entire amount as per Ext. D1 Hire Purchase agreement and therefore in accordance with the terms and conditions in Ext. D1 the opp.party has every right to issue notice to the hirer to surrender the vehicle and also to repossess the vehicle. It is well settled that under the Hire Purchase transaction the financier does not sender any service within the meaning of Sec. 2 [1] [o] of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore the complainant herein who is the hirer cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2[1] [d] and reliance can be drawn from the decision of National Commission reported in 111 [2006] CPJ 247<br /> <br /> The definite contention of the opp.parties is that amounts under the Hire Purchase Agreement are outstanding. The learned counsel for the opp.parties argued that though there was a settlement between the parties under which the transaction was settled at Rs.2,07,700/- which was to be paid immediately but the complainant remitted only Rs.1,85,000/- on 13.6.98 and did not pay the balance amount and therefore as per letter dated 21.7.98 the opp.parties revoked the agreement and when overdue charges under the Hire Purchase Agreement are outstanding they have every report to exercise their right to refuse to issue no Objection Certificate with regard to the actual amount due no counter evidence was produced by the complainant. The exercise right of the financier under the Hire Purchase Agreement not to issue No objection certificate cannot be considered as deficiency in service attracting the jurisdiction of this Forum and reliance can be drawn from the decision of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redress Commission reported in 2008 CTJ 663.<br /> <br /> It is also pertinent to point out that fraud and collusion are also alleged against the opp.parties herein by the complainant. Such complicated questions cannot be adjudicated by way of summary trial. These matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer forums and reliance can be drawn from the decision of National Commission reported in 2008 CTJ 338. There is also issues involving settlement of accounts for which also the consumer For a have no jurisdiction. For all that has been discussed above we hold that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.<br /> <br /> In the context it is also worth pointing out that complainant has not complied with the direction in appeal judgement. When this case was taken for order this aspect was noticed and the case was reopened and posted for <br /> compliance of the direction and adjourned to 20.7.2008. However the complaint did not comply with the direction.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant <br /> PW.1 – Muraleedharan Pillai<br /> PW.2. – Sasidharan Pillai<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Legal notice<br /> P2. – Reply sent by the opp.parties to the complainant<br /> P3. – Certificate of CC<br /> P4. – Receipts issued by the opp.parties to the complainant<br /> P5. – Copy of the letter sent by the complainant dt. 27.10.99<br /> P6. – Photocopy of receipts issued by the 4th opp.p;arty<br /> P7. – Photocopy of certificate issued by the RTO<br /> P8. – Photocopy of reply notice sent lby the opp.parties<br /> P9. – Letter sent lby the opp.parties to the complainant dt. 23.4.1998.<br /> P10. – Letter dated 28..3..2001 issued by 1st opp.party<br /> P11. – Letter dated 25.5.2001<br /> P12. -Telegram<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – V. Janardhanan<br /> DW. 2 – Krishna Pillai<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> D1. - Hire Purchase agreement<br /> D2. – Appeal No.550/2005<br /> D3. –Authorisation letter<br /> D4. – Letter sent lby Sakthi Finance Ltd. to the Registering Authority dt. 7.6.2001<br />