MD SALEEM Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 6.11.1997 passed in Case No.40/96 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : the appellant purchased a Eicher Canter on 7.7.1994 in Rs.4,20,455/- which was financed by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2. In terms of hire purchase agreement, the appellant was to pay loan amount in 36 monthly instalments of Rs.11,370/-. Till August, 1995 the appellant deposited an amount of Rs.89,800/-. In May, 1995, the vehicle met with an accident in which the appellant had to incur expenditure of Rs.55,000/-. The appellant submitted the claim with the respondent No.2 for Rs.46,000/-. The respondent No.2 appointed the Surveyor who assessed the net loss of Rs.23,294/-. On the basis of the Surveyor report the respondent No.2 settled the claim and paid the amount of Rs.23,294/- to the financer, the respondent No.1 in terms of the policy. The respondent No.1 for non-payment of instalments of the outstanding loan amount repossessed the vehicle on 4.9.1995 and made a demand on 7.9.1995 for the amount due of instalments of Rs.85,000/- but the outstanding amount was not paid. The appellant filed the complaint for deficiency in service in not settling the claim against the respondent No.2 and for the possession of the vehicle against respondent No.1. The complaint was resisted. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence held that in terms of the policy the respondent No.2 paid the amount of accident claim as assessed by the Surveyor to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 in terms of hire purchase agreement repossessed the vehicle for default of payment in instalments of the loan amount. The truck purchased was for the commercial purposes, therefore, the appellant was not a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act'), hence, dismissed the complaint.

(3.) In view of the fact that the appellant purchased the Eicher Canter after taking loan under hire purchase agreement with the respondent No.1 for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, the appellant was a consumer in view of the Explanation of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act.