PADMA WATI Vs. TATA FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed against judgment and order dated 5.7.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in Complaint Case No 386 of 2002, Padma Wati V/s. Tata Finance Limited and Another, the sole point, which has been decided by the District Forum is about lack of jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

(2.) It has been held in para 5 of the impugned order that the complainant/appellant was not a consumer under the provisions of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter to be referred as C. P. Act) because under the Hire Purchase Agreement, the appellant/complainant was only a bailee while the respondents/o. Ps. were the owners of the vehicle. The District Forum relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short hereinafter to be referred as National Commission) passed in Revision Petition No.367 of 1998, Tata Finance Limited V/s. Marjan Hossan and Others, decided on 12.2.2003.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant/complainant, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh delivered in the case of Tarun Bhargava V/s. State of Haryana and Another,2003 1 LJR 219, which, however, was a criminal revision petition in which quashing of First Information Report was prayed for and in that context, distinction was brought about between the contract of loan and the contract of hire purchase.