RAJA VISHINDAS RAMCHANDANI 402, SAI RACHNA APT.OPP: SADHUBELA HIGH SCHOOL, ULHASNAGAR Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD., SUMAN NAGAR, RAKALA COMPLEX, V.N.PUNAM MARG, CHAMBER(W) MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner purchased a Tata 407 vehicle from the respondent Tata Motors Ltd. and also got the same financed from the said company. The petitioner/complainant had taken loan of Rs. 3,64,000.00 from the respondent for purchasing the said vehicle. The loan was repayable in Equated Monthly Instalments. The vehicle came to be repossessed by the respondent on 25.1.2005 and was later sold by public auction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging therein that he was not in arrear of payment of the EMIs and, therefore, his vehicle had been wrongly seized and sold by the respondent. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was inter alia stated in the reply that since the petitioner/complainant was in arrear of instalment, the vehicle was seized and sold as per the agreement between the parties.

(2.) The District Forum vide its order dated 9.7.2010 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

(3.) Both the Fora below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner/complainant had defaulted in payment of the EMIs and there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering services to him. That apart, the vehicle in question being a commercial passenger vehicle, the complainant/petitioner would have purchased it for a commercial purpose. There is no averment in the complaint that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. In any case, the petitioner/complainant was working as a bank employee at the relevant time. It is, therefore, obvious that the vehicle in question was purchased by him for a commercial purpose. For this reason also, the consumer forum would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.