PRADIP INDUSTRIES Vs. GOYAL MOTOR FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was taken up for hearing on 5.12.92, the opposite party raised two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint, firstly, the claim is barred by limitation, and secondly as the transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party is of commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer in terms of Sec.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Henceforth to be described as the act in brevity ).

(2.) We are not required to enter into the merits of the case, but before dealing with the preliminary points we propose to narrate the facts of the case in brief. As stated in the complaint the complainant is a proprietorial firm, and the opposite party is a firm which deals in hire purchase of vehicles. The complainant taking finance to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- from the opposite party purchased a Truck of Tata-Make from M/s. French Motor Car Company Ltd. , Guwahati on 11.10.83. A hire purchase agreement was executed between the parties and the opposite party charged 17% interest on the amount for two years to be paid in 24 monthly instalments. The vehicle was accordingly registered as ASN 5874 in the name of the complainant showing the opposite party as financier. That the complainant duly paid all the 24 instalments, the last instalment being paid on 29.5.86 which was duly receipted by the opposite party. That while depositing the aforesaid amount the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 29.5.86 requesting the opposite party to issue a clearance letter for cancellation of the endorsement in the registration certificate. Inspite of series of letters and reminders starting from 21.11.86 sent by the complainant, and by personal approaching the opposite party requesting for a release letter, the opposite party declined the same, and instead sent Advocate's notice dated 9.7.90 wherein it was mentioned that the complainant had not paid the principal as well as interest on the loan amount. The complainant thereafter wrote registered letter to the opposite party requesting for the cancellation of the endorsement in the Registration Certificate, and this matter was also brought to the notice of the District Transport Officer; Nagaon, but the opposite party did not issue the release letter. Hence this complaint praying for an order directing the opposite party to issue the release letter and to pay compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- for its failure and for future loss.

(3.) In the written objection the opposite party has taken up the aforesaid two preliminary objections. The opposite party admits of the hire purchase finance, and further states in the written objections that the complainant did not duly clear all the 24 instalments in time, that the complainant on one occasion only paid the 6th instalment on 9.4.84 and all the remaining 23 instalments were paid after its due dates. Due to non-payment of the instalments in time, huge amount of arrear accumulated in the loan account in the form of late fee compounded with the further interest, and as such, the opposite party has not issued the release letter because the complainant is yet to clear the outstanding account. The opposite party denies the receipt of the letters and personnel meeting of the complainant except the receipt of the first reminder of the letter dated 6.10.90 on 22.10.90.