JOGENDER SINGH Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner, who places reliance on Madan Kumar Singh (Dead) Through L.Rs. V/s. District Magistrate, Sultan-pur and Others, 2009 9 SCC 79, and submitted before us that the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a consumer and the truck had been purchased for commercial purpose.

(2.) The petitioner had obtained finance for the truck from the respondents and had defaulted in payment of the instalments. Seven cheques issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured and the vehicle was repossessed and sold in auction. The District Forum directed payment of the cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 8.5 lacs with 9% interest thereon as also compensation of Rs. 10,000 as well as cost of Rs. 1,000. This order was challenged by the OP/ Respondent before the State Commission. The State Commission relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583 and Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Dilip Chandra Kant Vaidya & Ors., I (2007) CPJ 51 (NC), of the National Commission held that the vehicle in question had been purchased for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood by self-employment. The State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Petitioner /Complainant was not a consumer. However, it was observed by the State Commission that the complainant shall be free to avail any remedy available to him under any other law. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works , has threadbare examined the relevant provisions under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of the observations of the Apex Court judgment having bearing in the matter are as under: