IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

Dated this 16^th day of August 2016

Complaint No.134/2016

 :: ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT ::

1)      U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the opponents alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs for non issuing prior notice before seizure & sale of the vehicle of complainant.

2)      The complainant in his complaint submitted that the OPs are running financial company to give loan to the customers to purchase various types of vehicles for personal and commercial use. The complainant is a contractor and he requires some vehicles for the purpose of contract work. The OPs approached him and insisted to take loan to purchase the commercial vehicles. The OPs assured that they will charge very low interest. Hence the complainant purchased Terex Vietra Equipment Ltd Vehicle by availing loan from OPs. The complainant was regularly paying monthly installments towards loan. But due to loss in his business the complainant failed to pay some installments. The OPs forced him to pay the amount. Inspite of requests made by complainant the OPs seized the vehicle.   Further the complainant contended that complainant came to know after receiving the notice in E.P.524/2015 before Hon’ble. Prl. Dist & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, that OPs have sold the vehicle without permission, knowledge and information of complainant for Rs.5.50 lakhs and conducted an exparte arbitration proceedings. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

3)      We have heard the complainant and perused the records and citations produced.

Citations produced by complainant:

1. Dr.Atul Seth vs. L&T Ltd., Case FA 9/879 dtd.20.07.2010
2. Tata Motors Vs. Taishan Lal Appeal in FA 12/380 dtd.4/1/13 Chattisgad State Commission
3. Seema Rani vs. Sri Ram Finance Transport Appeal 656/11 dt.16/5/14 Chattisgad State Commission
4. Indiabulls Finance vs. Rama Mohan FA No.49412 dt.23/1/14 Hyderabad State Commission

:: R E A S O N S ::

4)      On perusal of allegations of complaint, the complainant has stated that he is a contractor & he requires some vehicle for the purpose of contract work. The OPs approached him and insisted to take loan to purchase commercial vehicle. He further submits that at the time the OPs assured that they will charge very low interest. Accordingly believing the words of OPs, the complainant purchased  Terex Vietra Equipment Ltd Vehicle and he furnished the necessary documents to OPs and availed loan from OPs in the year 2009. Accordingly the OPs have sanctioned loan of Rs.11,64,800/- to purchase commercial vehicle. On perusal of the contents of complaint the complainant purchased the commercial vehicle after obtaining loan from OPs. He has admitted that he availed loan for purchasing the commercial vehicle. As per the decision reported in 2016 (2) CPR 384 (NC), in between Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., and another vs. K.Lata- wherein it is held that “CP Act 1986-Sec.15,17, 1 and 21 – Financial services- Hire Purchase- surrender of vehicle after failure to repay loan amount-Once it is admitted that complainant availed loan facility from OP for running her business, complainant is excluded from purview of consumer unless it is pleaded and proved that complainant availed services exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment-In absence of any pleading to the fact that loan facility was availed for running business exclusively for earning her livelihood, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer-Order of State Commission set aside & complaint dismissed- Once it is admitted that complainant availed loan facility from OP for running her business complainant is excluded from purview of consumer”

5)      On perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant pleaded in the complaint that the complainant is a contractor and he requires some vehicles for the purpose of contract work and he purchased vehicle Terex Vietra Equipment Ltd Vehicle for commercial purpose with the financial assistance of OP.1. The vehicle purchased by complainant is for his contract works. The complainant has nowhere pleaded that the vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

6)      Once it is admitted that the complainant availed loan facility from OPs for running his business, complainant is excluded from the purview of consumer unless it is pleaded and proved that, the complainant availed services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the absence of pleading in the complaint as well as in the absence of any proof to the effect that the complainant availed loan facility exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self employment, the complaint is not entertainable by Dist.Forum. The vehicle which was purchased by the complainant for his contract works and also he admits in the complaint that he has purchased the vehicle for commercial work. In such circumstances consumer complaint is not maintainable. The citations relied on by the complainant are not applicable to the present case on hand. There are no sufficient grounds to allow the complaint of complainant. Hence we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

The complaint filed by complainant is dismissed.

          Member                    Member                    President

msr*