State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Goyal Son Of Sant Ram, vs Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. on 16 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1652 of 2009
Date of institution: 20.11.2009
Date of decision : 16.12.2009
Ramesh Goyal son of Sant Ram, 666, Main Road, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.
.....Appellant
Versus
Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. having its Office at 2765-B, Ist Floor, above
Amway, Tinkoni Chowk, GT Road, Bathinda through its Managing Pawan
Kumar.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 27.10.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Achin Gupta, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "the District Forum") with the allegations that the appellant had purchased two vehicles bearing registration No.PB03-P-9336 and PB03-P-8610 on 16.09.2009. These vehicles were financed by the respondents for an amount of Rs.8 lacs each. These vehicles were re-possessed forcibly by the respondents. This action of the respondents was challenged by the appellant.
2. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint in limine vide impugned order dated 27.10.2009 on the plea that it was a commercial transaction.
3. Hence, this appeal.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had hired the services of the respondents in financing the vehicles which First Appeal No.1652 of 2009 2 he had purchased for earning his livelihood. Therefore, the appellant was a consumer qua the respondents. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2009 be set aside.
5. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
6. Since the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 27.10.2009 without issuing notice to the respondents, therefore, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents.
7. The appellant had taken the loan from the respondents on interest basis and thereby, he availed their services for purchasing the trucks. Therefore, the appellant had become a consumer qua the respondents. He had purchased the trucks for earning his livelihood. It is a secondary matter whether he was driving the truck himself or he had employed a driver. The fact remains that he had purchased the trucks for earning his livelihood.
8. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and another v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., 2009 CTJ 233 (Supreme Court) (CP)". The facts of that case were as under : -
"2. As the principal arguments have been advanced in Civil Appeal No.1879 of 2003, we take up the facts of that appeal which are thus, briefly put. M/s. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited (for short, 'the company') is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the activity of manufacture of iron products. The company applied for the supply of electrical energy (2500 KVA) to the Karnataka Electricity Board (now Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and hereinafter referred to as 'KPTC').................The company accordingly filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act, 1986') before First Appeal No.1652 of 2009 3 the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum claiming damages in the sum of Rs.99,900/- for delay in supply of electricity. The complaint was contested by KPTC, and, inter alia, preliminary objection was raised that complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and electricity being goods; sale of goods to a commercial consumer for a commercial purpose was outside the scope of the Act, 1986."
9. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the complainant was a consumer and the complaint was maintainable.
10. In view of the above discussions, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 27.10.2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned District Forum with the direction to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with the law.
11. Parties are directed to appear in the learned District Forum on 07.01.2010.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER December 16, 2009.
Paritosh