DILIP KUMAR SINGH Vs BRANCH MANAGER, CITI CORP FINANCE (I) LIMITED

The petitioner/complainant obtained a loan of Rs.16,41,000/- from the respondent for purchasing a truck. The loan amount was payable in installments. After paying some installments, the petitioner/complainant defaulted in payment as a result of which the aforesaid truck was possessed by the respondent through its agency namely Balaji Transport & Farwarding Agency. The truck was later sold at a price of Rs.7,50,000/- on 28.06.2010. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid act of the respondent, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, he having taken a commercial loan for purchasing the truck.

The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, 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.

The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner can be said to be a consumer of the respondent or not. The contention of the learned counsel or the petitioner is that since the truck was purchased by the petitioner/complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment, he was covered under the explanation below Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, on a perusal of the complaint, I find that it contained no specific averment that the truck in question was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. The only averment on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is para no. 9 of the complaint where it is alleged that the complainant had been maintaining his family from the above mentioned vehicle. The aforesaid averment is altogether different from pleading that the truck was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the complainant/petitioner cannot be said to be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

Since the petitioner/complainant was not a consumer of the respondent, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint on its merit and the petitioner ought to have been relegated to the concerned Civil Court for the redressal of the grievances.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order dismissing the complaint but it is made clear that the dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of petitioner/complainant approaching a Civil Court for the redressal of his grievances. The aforesaid liberty is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that if filed, the Civil Suit would be barred by limitation. It is made clear that if the petitioner /complainant files a Civil Suit, it will be entitled to seek benefit of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act provided such a benefit is otherwise admissible to him in law and if such a benefit is sought, the respondent will be entitled to oppose the prayer and plead that the Civil Suit is barred by limitation. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Previous cost has been paid.