Today has been fixed for necessary order on the point of admissibility of the complaint filed by the complainant against the op.party for unfair trade practice .

    It is submitted that the complainant has purchased a big Bolero pick up van from the Podder Auto corporation Pvt.Ltd. and the car was under hypothecation agreement with the op.party company. The husband of the complainant is a co-borrower. The total value of the said vehicle is Rs.8,32,253/-. The opp.party has financed an amount of Rs.6,86,000/- in favour of the complainant for a tenure of 59 months and accordingly the complainant is to pay 59 installment w.e.f. 20.3.2021 to 20.1.2026 @  15,973/-. The complainant paid the E.M.I. upto Feb,2023 and thereafter the complainant defaulted to pay the E.M.I. for the month of March 2023 due to financial hardship . Thereafter, the opp.party has sent a Final Call Letter to the complainant, which the complainant has received in the last part of March 2023  Opp.party.party had taken custody of the said vehicle on 12.4.2023  without issuing any notice to the complainant .

     It is further stated by the complainant that he visited the opp .party with a view to clear E.M.I.up to date , but the said branch office refused to accept the E.M.I. and also disclose that the vehicle in question has already sold out. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opp.party and the complainant received a reply wherein the opp.party denied all the allegations of the complainant. The complainant filed this case against the opp.party and prays to direct the opp.party  to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and to hand over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant .

   We have found that the complainant purchased her vehicle under hypothecation with the opp.pary vide an agreement no.VFPTOL0004024828 i.e. to say the agreement was made  between the parties. It is settled rule that both the parties in an agreement promises that they are bound to fulfil all the duties and obligations according to the contract.

    There is specific law for violation of conditions mentioned in the agreement by either of the parties. The parties are bound by the contract .

   The word “consumer” is defined under the Consumer Protection act, 2019 as follows, 

Consumer means any person who-

(i)            buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such  goods other than the person who buys such  goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment , when  such use is made with the approval of such  person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ;”

 (ii)   Hires  or avails of any service for a consideration   which  has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system  of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such  service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration  paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under  any system of deferred payment, when such  services are availed  of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but  does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose

    We are of the view that the allegation of the complainant against the opp.party was for taking the custody of the vehicle in question as the complainant failed to pay the E.M.I. The complainant submitted that she has to pay 59 installment w.e.f.  20.3.2021 to 20.1.2026 @  15,973/-under the said hypothecation agreement. The opp.party has sent a final call letter which the complainant has received in the last part of March 2023.

    The above fact  clearly indicates that it is a commercial transaction having a specific agreement between the two parties. As such, the violation of any terms and condition of a contract cannot be taken  up  or decided in a summary procedure of trial as involved in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

    The parties may approach the appropriate forum, for available remedy . Therefore, we do not find it a suitable  case for admission considering the complainant as a consumer as definition under the act.  

      Hence ,  case is not admitted.