KAMALJEET SINGH vs Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.

HEARD at admission stage.

ALL the aforesaid six appeals, which are listed for admission, are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved. Appeal No. 598/2004 Kamaljeet Singh v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Bhilwara in Case No. 66/2002 by which the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was dismissed and it was further observed by the learned District Forum that if the appellant-complainant intends to seek remedy, he could approach appropriate another Forum.

It may be stated here that the appellant-complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the learned District Forum, Bhilwara stating inter alia that the respondent financed Rs. 6,48,000/- to the complainant-appellant for purchase of two trailer and an agreement was executed between the parties. It was further stated in the complaint that as per the agreement, in total Rs. 7,78,900/- were to be paid by the appellant-complainant to the respondent in 23 instalments. It was further stated in the complaint that as against Rs. 7,78,900/-, the appellant-complainant has paid Rs. 8,17,552.32 and, thus, Rs. 18,652.32 have been paid in excess by the appellant-complainant and for refund of the said excess amount, the present complaint was failed by the appellant-complainant.

A reply was filed by the respondent and a preliminary objection was taken by it that the appellant-complainant was not a consumer as for commercial purpose, respondent financed some money to the complainant-appellant. Apart from that, another objection was taken by the respondent that since there was a dispute in respect of penalty and charges between the parties and such dispute could not be decided by the District Forum, therefore, from this point of view also, the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Bhilwara through impugned order date 20.2.2004 dismissed the complaint of the appellant-complainant holding inter alia that since the appellant-complainant received the amount as loan from the respondent for commercial purpose, therefore, disputes between the parties was not of consumer dispute. While dismissing the complaint, the learned District Forum has further observed that if the appellant-complainant intends to seek remedy, he could approach appropriate another Forum.

AGGRIEVED from the said order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Bhilwara, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at admission stage and gone through the impugned order. In our considered opinion, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since the complainant-appellant had taken loan from the respondent for purchasing two trailers for commercial use, therefore, there was no consumer dispute between the parties and, thus, the findings of the learned District Forum to the effect that since the appellant-complainant received the amount as loan from the respondent for commercial purpose, therefore, dispute between the parties was not of consumer dispute and if the appellant-complainant intends to seek remedy, he could approach another appropriate forum, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse one and rather, they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials available on record.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant and Ors. v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2004) SLT 714=AIR 2002 SC 2931 and in our considered opinion, that ruling stands distinguished from the facts of the present case and, thus, that ruling would not come to help the appellant-complainant.

THUS, for the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned order of the learned District Forum, Bhilwara dated 20.2.2004 as it does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. (2) Appeal No. 599/2004 Ranjeet Singh v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (3) Appeal No. 600/2004 Ranjeet Singh v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (4) Appeal No. 596/2004 Kamaljeet Singh v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (5) Appeal No. 601/2004 Shravan Singh v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (6) Appeal No. 597/2004 Kamaljeet Singh v. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.

The aforesaid appeals also raise the same questions of law and facts, which have been decided above while deciding appeal No. 598/2004 and, thus, for the reasons given above while deciding appeal No. 598/2004, these appeals also deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, in the result, all the aforesaid six appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.