BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.421/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 26^th September, 2019

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.           

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint has filed by Satish.H.S. S/o Shivaramu.H.M. aged 33 years resident of Yerahalli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysuru District to direct the opposite parties to issue No Objection Certificate and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony. 
2.       The opposite party No.1 is M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Mumbai and its Branch office at H.D.Kote Taluk is opposite party No.2. 
3.       It is the case of complainant that he had purchased vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18-A-2311 on 15.04.2014 by availing loan of Rs.2,41,572/-from opposite party No.2.  He had paid nine monthly installments of Rs.10,500/- each and subsequently on the advice of the opposite party No.2 Branch Manager he paid entire balance amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to close the loan account on 21.05.2015.  The opposite party No.2 has told that they will issue NOC within 15 days but failed to comply the same and instead of that they started calling over him phone for repayment of Rs.2,22,500/-.  Hence, this complaint.
4.        The opposite party No.2 filed written version admitting that the complainant has purchased the Force Toofan-P having registration No.KA-18-A-2311 passenger commercial vehicle by availing loan from this opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ under the Act since he has availed loan for commercial purpose.  That on 21.05.2015 the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,79,284/- but he has paid only a sum of Rs.3,43,600/-. as such, still he has to pay remaining amount of Rs.35,684/- towards loan balance.  The complainant instead of making payment of Rs.35,684/- has filed this false case.  This opposite party is ever ready and willing to issue the NOC to its customer including the complainant subject to clearing of entire loan.  On the above reasons, the opposite party No.2 asked to dismiss the complaint.
5.      The opposite party No.1 in spite of service of notice was remained placed exparte.
6.      The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced Ex.P.1 statement of account issued by OP No.2 and Ex.P.2 copy of legal notice dated 25.10.2018.  That one Shivakumar.B.R., GPA holder of opposite party No.2 filed affidavit and produced Exhibits R.1 to R.3.
7.       We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and learned counsel representing the opposite party No.2 in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and opposite party No.2 and the  points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves that despite discharge of entire loan, the opposite parties have failed to issue NOC which amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Whether the opposite party No.2 proves that the complainant is not ‘Consumer‘ under the Act?
3.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.2 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.3 :- In the negative for the below;

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.         Point Nos.1 to 3:- The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 argued that the complainant has only paid seven EMIs but he has falsely narrated in the complaint that he has paid nine EMIs.  The complainant has purchased vehicle for commercial purpose as such he is not ‘Consumer’ under the Act.  The complainant has failed to pay the insurance premium for two years and the opposite party No.2 in terms of hypothecation agreement clause No.3.8 has paid the insurance premium of the vehicle.
10.        The account statement issued by opposite party No.2 marked as Ex.P.1 indicates that the complainant has paid seven EMIs as on 28.02.2015 since he had availed loan on 07.03.2014. The complainant was due a sum of Rs.1,14,849/- as on 04.05.2015 but the complainant has paid Rs.2,70,000/- on 21.05.2015.  Even after payment of Rs.2,70,000/- the opposite party No.2 has went on debiting interest and other charges and same has been adjusted in the excess amount paid by the complainant.  When the complainant had paid Rs.2,70,000/- as on 21.05.2015, the opposite party No.2 should have indicated actual balance payable by him towards loan if any.  Ex.P.1 statement of account indicates that as on 12.10.2018 loan balance has showed at Rs.2,19,262/-. When the complainant has approached this Forum, the opposite party No.2 by opening its eyes has come up with a new version in the written objections filed by it that the complainant is due only a sum of Rs.35,684/- which includes two years insurance premium.  It shows that the opposite party No.2 has not maintained the account of the complainant properly.  Further it shows that the opposite party No.2 to get wrongful gain from the complainant has went on debiting interest and other charges and even instalment amount till 2018.  It shows that the complainant on the say of Branch Manager of opposite party No.2 has credited entire loan amount of Rs.2,70,000/- in the month of May, 2015.
11.       The opposite party No.2 has produced B-extract of the vehicle purchased by the complainant by availing loan from it.  B-extract shows that the vehicle purchased by complainant is Maxi cab and its sitting capacity is 12.  The complainant in the affidavit evidence stated that he is working as teacher in Private School.  The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant is working as a teacher as such he is not depending on the income of vehicle.   The complainant in the complaint or affidavit evidence no where whispered that he has been using the income of vehicle for his livelihood.  The opposite party No.2 learned counsel relied upon the case of Shahid Ali Vs Rohit Sanghi Bhopal Motor Pvt. Ltd, and others – I (2018) CPJ 26A (CN) (MP) and Shripal Kala Vs Ratipal and another – III (2018) CPJ 368 (NC).  In the above cases it is held that if the vehicle is used for commercial purpose then complainant not becomes ‘Consumer’ under the Act.  It is further observed that complainant made no averment that he purchased machine for earning livelihood.  In the case on hand also the complainant has not made averment either in the complaint or affidavit evidence that he purchased the vehicle for his livelihood.  In the absence of averments with regard to purchase of vehicle for livelihood, this Forum has to presume that the complainant has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose as such he does not fall as Consumer under the C.P.Act, 1986.  On this ground the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the  following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Sathish.H.S. is dismissed without cost.

2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 26^th September, 2019)