LOKMAN AHMED BUX Vs. CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LTD & ORS ; REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER R T O ; JUDHISTIRA MOHANTY; CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER ; REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant, a proprietorship concern, carrying on business under the name and style of Utkal Nirman, has preferred this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), against the order, dated 27.08.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack (for short, "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 100 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint in limini, on the ground that the Petitioner having availed of services of the Respondent Finance Company for "commercial purpose", he is not a "Consumer" as defined by the Act and, therefore, the Complaint is not maintainable.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that on 12.09.2005, he had availed of a loan facility of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the Respondent Finance Company for purchasing a Ashok Leyland truck chassis. As per the loan agreement, the Petitioner was required to pay to the Finance Company, equated monthly instalments (EMI) of Rs. 27,075/- each, on or before 12th of every calendar month, in 46 installments, commencing from 12.09.2005 and ending on 12.07.2009. However, due to unforeseen business losses and expenditure on urgent family needs, he could not pay three installments. On the night of 18.05.2007, the Petitioner claims to have received a telephonic message from the driver of the vehicle that a group of persons, numbering about 30, assaulted him and took possession of the vehicle from the factory premises. It is the case of the Petitioner that he did not receive any notice from the Finance Company regarding repossession of the vehicle. It seems that vide letter dated 10.05.2007, which had been posted on 17.05.2007, the Finance Company, while recalling the loan facility, had called upon the Petitioner to repay the entire loan amounting to Rs. 7,93,904.54. In the event of the Petitioner failing to pay the said amount, repossession of the vehicle was threatened. Petitioner's efforts to convince the Finance Company to accept the unpaid EMIs having failed, he was constrained to file the Complaint in the State Commission, inter-alia, praying for a direction to the Finance Company to pay to him a sum of Rs. 29,10,275/- along with interest @ 9% p.a towards the financial loss and mental agony suffered by him on account of re-possession of the vehicle without any prior notice.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Finance Company. In its written version, while denying the allegation of any deficiency in service on its part, the question of maintainability of the Complaint was raised. It was pleaded that the loan having been raised for purchase of vehicle, which was used for "Commercial Purpose" in the running of the business of the said concern, the Petitioner was not a "Consumer" and hence the Complaint under the Act was not maintainable.