Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the application filed by the op nos. 1 & 2 to the effect that practically complaint is filed against the said P. Jha, Ramuji and DilipDaa are all partners of TrimurtiParivahan including the Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

          Fact remains that ops have claimed that op nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not related with op no.1, moreover complainant filed a case against P. Jha, Ramuji and DilipDaa op nos. 2, 3 & 4 for continuing theft in respect of his vehicle and being Police Case No. 185/2014 and as per Hon’ble Magistrate’s order the said vehicle was ceased and was kept in the custody of the policy. 

Fact remains that complainant prayed for return of the said vehicle to the Ld. Magistrate and fact remains that complainant did not receive the same from the Police on the ground some of the parts of the vehicle were found stolen and practically a Police Case is pending in between the complainant and op nos. 2, 3 & 4 and in the said Police Case, op nos. 2, 3 & 4 are accused.  But there is no relation in between the complainant and op nos. 2, 3 & 4 as consumer and service provider.

Further it is alleged against op no.1 and in fact regardingrecovery of the vehicle or removal of the vehicle from the possession of the complainant.  But after proper consideration of the complaint and including written version, it is clear that ops have prayed for dismissal of the case on the ground that this case is not maintainable at this stage.  Whereas complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that such a plea of the op cannot be accepted in view of the fact for pending Criminal Case, the present complaint is otherwise maintainable because it is a civil claim and for which the present objection should be dismissed.

But after considering the present complaint including the fact, it is clear that there is no relationship in between the complainant and the op nos. 2, 3 & 4 as consumer and service provider.  But on the contrary it is found that complainant is the proprietor of the transport service whereas the op nos. 2, 3 & 4 are also partners of a Parivahan company.  Whereas op no.1 is the financer of the vehicle which belongs to the complainant.  So, apparently the present complaint against op nos. 2, 3 & 4 is not maintainable.

At the same time it is proved that Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. is op no.1 and said op no.1 guaranteed a loan on 26.05.2012 and complainant is the owner of the vehicle.  But due to certain business feud, complainant’s vehicle was removed by op nos. 2, 3 & 4 may be for which complainant lodged an FIR being No. 185/2014 against op no.2, 3 & 4 before Dankuni P.S. u/s 406/420/34 I.P.C. and in that case op no.1 is not a party.  Only op nos. 2, 3 & 4 are parties.  So, it is clear that op no.1 never removed the vehicle from the possession of the complainant.  But fact remains that vehicle is hypothecated by op no.1 and it was made by the complainant at the time of taking loan.

Moreover in the complaint, there is no such allegation that service had not been provided by the financer.  But practically only for avoiding for payment of EMIs, this complaint is filed by the complainant.  Further from the complaint, it is clear that there is no allegation that vehicle was removed illegally by op no.1 by deputing musclemen.  So, after considering all the above materials, it is found that the entire complaint is not maintainable in its present form because there is no such consumer dispute in between the complainant and ops and particularly against op no.1 also, this complaint is not tenable in the present fact and circumstances for which the maintainability petition as filed by the op succeeds.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is not maintainable in the eye of law against the ops because there is no consumer dispute in between the complainant and ops particularly there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and op nos. 2, 3 & 4 and at the same time there is no consumer dispute practically in between the complainant and op no.1 because in his complaint is filed only with a hope to get a relief.  So, that complainant may get some benefit from the Forum for not paying any EMI in respect of loan amount which he has taken from the op no.1.

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed as same is not maintainable in the eye of law.