DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 151 OF 2017
DATE OF FILING: 1.12.2017 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 21/06/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Indranil Mridha, son of Ajay Kumar Mridha of Vill.+P.O Sherpur, P.S Usthi, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743503.
O.P/O.Ps : The Manager/ Authorised Officer, Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. 115A, Raja Rammohan Roy Road, Wilow Tower, 1st Floor, Kolkata-8.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased a brand new Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle succinctly described in the body of the complaint in the month of july 2015 , for commercial purpose ,intending to earn his livelihood as stated in the supplementary complaint filed by the complainant. He paid Rs.2,96,168/- and the rest amount of Rs.5,20,000/- was financed by the O.P. The O.P advanced Rs.5,20,000/- to the complainant as loan on 14.7.2015. But, route permit was not available to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant could not ply his vehicle , as a result of which he could not pay the installments as agreed upon between him and the O.P. He paid Rs.1 lac approximately to the O.P. On 7.7.2017 the O.P company repossessed the vehicle without notice. The complainant now prays for release of the vehicle ,furnishing account of outstanding amount and for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.P company has been contesting the caes by filing written version of statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the case is not maintainable in law and that the complainant took a loan of Rs.5,20,000/- on 14.7.2015 for purchasing a commercial vehicle on condition to repay the same in 59 installments of Rs.13,500/- each month by month. The complainant failed to repay the installments and, therefore, the O.P company acting in terms of the agreement , repossessed the vehicle with due notice to the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.7,05,000/- - the amount falling due from him. But, he failed to make any payment. The vehicle is sold after giving notice and sale proceeds are adjusted to outstanding dues from the complainant. The complainant is still liable to pay Rs.4,20,622/- to the O.P company.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in law ?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P,as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief of reliefs as prayed for and if so, to what extent?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led their Evidence on affidavit which are kept in the record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 :
It has been contended on behalf of the O.P that the instant case is not at all maintainable in law inasmuch as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term “Consumer” as provided in C.P Act, 1986. It is submitted on behalf of the O.P company that the complainant himself has stated in the petition of complaint that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. If a vehicle is purchased for commercial purpose, the purchaser cannot be regarded as a consumer and if the purchaser is not a consumer, a consumer case is not lawfully maintainable before the Forum , as goes the submission of the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P.
The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose . Even he applied for route permit before the Government of West Bengal and the route permit was also issued in his favour by the Government. Though, this fact has not been truly expressed in the petition of complaint, it has been stated in the petition of complaint that the route permit was not issued in favour of the complainant. But a copy of the route permit is seen filed within the record and it is seen therefrom that the Government of West Bengal issued route permit in favour of the complainant.
Be that as it may, it stands proved on the very face of the complaint that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose. If a transaction is a commercial transaction, person dealing with such commercial transaction can never be held to be a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of C.P Act, 1986 unless that person succeeds to prove that the transaction was for earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
In the instant case, there is no averment whatsoever in the petition of complaint that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose with sole intention of earning livelihood by way of self employment. This fact of earning livelihood by way of self employment requires to be pleaded and proved. There is no pleadings nor any proof in the evidence of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased by him for earning livelihood by means of self employment. In this connection, it appears to be germane to mention that one supplementary complaint was filed by the complainant about 19 days after the filing of the case, wherein it is stated by the complainant that the vehicle was purchased for earning livelihood. This supplementary complaint cannot be accepted as a pleadings of the complainant. There is the procedure of law for insertion of any averment in the petition of complaint and that can be done by way of amendment in the petition of complaint as provided under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C . Beyond the provisions under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C, there is no shortcut to make any change in the pleadings of either the complaint or the plaint. That lawful procedure has not been resorted to by the complainant and considering this aspect of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the supplementary complaint is non-est; it has no existence at all in the eye of law.
On the whole, it is held that the complainant is not a ‘consumer ‘and, therefore, the instant case appears to be not maintainable in Law.
Point no.1 is thus answered against the complainant.
In view of what has been discussed above, point nos. 2 and 3 are also determined against the complainant.
In the result the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P, but without any cost.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
