ARIF PASHA vs ENFIELD BUSINESS FINANCIERS LEASING LTD.

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,23,149.35 Ps. from the Opposite Party.

IT is the case of the Complainant that he purchased a light motor vehicle Swaraj Mazda, bearing Registration No. CAW 1000 on 25.8.89 for a sum of Rs. 2,48,851.97 Ps. The Complainant further averred that he availed a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from the Opposite Party and invested his own amount of Rs. 62,851.97 Ps. and purchased the said vehicle. Thereafter, he spent a sum of Rs. 30.000/- to improve the condition of the said vehicle. It is nextly the case of the Complainant that he was to make payment of the said amount of loan which he had obtained from the Opposite Party in 42 monthly installments of a sum of Rs. 6,885/- but he was able to make payment only of 12 installments regularly upto 25.8.90. Subsequently when he failed to make payment of further installments the Opposite Party took away the vehicle in the month of November, 1990 and sold it in the month of January, 1991 and credited the said amount so realised from the sale of the said vehicle to the account of the Complainant and the balance amount of Rs. 4,430/- offered to pay to the Complainant. It is the grievance of the Complainant that even though he had offered to make payment of the entire loan amount in the month of Feb., 1991 but by that time the Opposite Party had sold the vehicle and had credited the said amount to the account of the Complainant.

The Complainant on the basis of these averments sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,23,149.35 Ps., on various counts from the Opposite Party.

THE Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the Complainant cannot be classified as a consumer under the provisions of the Act and in that view the complaint itself was untenable. The Opposite Party further averred that the Complainant had purchased the said vehicle under a hire purchase agreement and when he failed to make the payment of the instalment amount he himself surrendered the said vehicle and the loan amount was realised.

THE Opposite Party on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry the Complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and got Exs. C.1 to C.5 marked in evidence. The Opposite Party filed the affidavit of its Executive Director in evidence and got Exs. R.1 to R.6 marked in evidence. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

IT is evident from the averments contained in the complaint that the Complainant had only borrowed certain amounts from the Opposite Party M/s. Enfield Business Financiers Leasing Ltd., and the relationship is only that of a borrower and creditor. The National Commission in several cases has held that out of such a relationship a consumer dispute does not arise.

THE National Commission in First Appeal No. 2 of 1991 - M/s. Agganval Dyeing Industries v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors. (D.D. 6.8.91) while considering such an aspect of the matter held as under: "Though there appears to be some substance in the contention raised by the Appellant that the ground stated by the State viz., that the subject matter of the complaint is subjudice before the Munsiff Court, Pali, is not quite correct, we find on our going through the facts of the case that the Appellant cannot be regarded as consumer at all as per the definition of the said expression contained in the Act. He had only borrowed certain amounts from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the relationship is only that of borrower and debtor. We have already held in several cases that out of such a relationship a consumer dispute cannot arise. THE complaint, therefore, deserves to be rejected though not on the ground stated by the State Commission. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant cannot be classified as a ''Consumer'' and the complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.