The court emphasized that a dispute based on a private contract and already subject to dispute before a civil court cannot be entertained under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice Malik Sharief-ud-Din, President—The complainant was financed by the opposite party. We have waited enough there is no appearance for the complainant. The Order Sheet will reveal that the complainant occasionally would not appear.

2. The complainant had purchased a truck No. 9721/JKB for which it was financed by the opposite party. It appears from the contents of the complaint as well as from the objections raised by the opposite party that this vehicle was seized by the O.P. on the ground that the complainant failed to make the payments of instalments under the contract of Hire Purchase Agreement between the parties. Under the agreement the truck till the loan is liquidated in essence remains the property of the Financier- opposite party herein. The complainant has tried to bring him his case within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act by stating that the opposite party has failed to provide proper services but he has not stand that pursuant to the Hire Purchase Agreement the instalments were paid regularly and that he had not made any default in the payment of instalments under the agreements. He has further suppressed the fact from us that on the same facts he had earlier brought a suit before the City Judge, Jammu which was dismissed on 9.3.1992 after the opposite party had filed its objections. In effect the case of the complainant is that Go By should be given to the Hire Purchase Agreement and on his mere ipsi-dixit the case should be brought within the scope of the C.P. Act, and he shall be provided compensation for the period for which he remained deprived of me truck because of the seizure by the Financier. The dispute between the parties essentially is based on a private contract and the accord to the vague contents of the complaint and the objections submitted by the opposite party has arisen because the truck was seized for default in the payment of instalments. The Financier in the present case was entitled to enforce the terms of the contract and if it has done so, there is no scope for entertaining such a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Moreso in view of the fact that this matter was a subject matter of dispute before the Civil Court and the suit finally came to be dismissed.

3. On the facts stated above it is clear that the complainant had neither hired the services of the opposite party nor is he a consumer within the scope of the Act. The complaint is thus misconceived and beyond the scope of the J & K State Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

Complaint dismissed.

___