Dr. (Mrs.) Arati Mohanty, Presiding Member—The complainant’s case, in brief, is that he requested the opposite parties to finance for purpose of the chassis of a Tata truck as he had no sufficient money to purchase the same. There is an agreement between the complainant and opposite parties as per terms and conditions of the Finance Company. A sum of Rs. 4,23,700/- was paid by the opposite parties (financier) and a sum of Rs. 75,405/- was paid by the complainant as margin money of the loan amount. It was also agreed between the parties that the complainant would pay the total amount of Rs. 6,32,010/- as against the loan amount of Rs. 4,23,700/- to the opposite parties in 36 instalments from 29.8.1997 to 29.7.2000.

2. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 75,405/- on 29.7.1997 as margin money, Rs. 500/- as charges towards demand draft, Rs. 3,000/- as documentation charges, Rs. 5,500/- as service charge and Rs. 12,343/- as insurance amount respectively, before the opposite party No. 3.

3. On 25.8.1997 the complainant registered his truck and registration No. is OR-09A/3271 as per the Registering Authority, Keonjhar. On 29.2.2000 the opposite party No. 3 seized the truck of the complainant at Rourkela while the truck was running with some goods without issuing any seizure list to the driver of the truck.

4. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 4,23,700/- from the opposite parties with a condition that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 6,32,010/-. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/- before opposite party No. 3 as on 29.2.2000. But the opposite parties, it is alleged, without issuing any notice of default or giving any opportunity to repay the defaulted amount, seized the truck of the complainant.

5. On 8.3.2000 the authorised signatory of Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. issued a letter to the complainant that his truck was in their possession and directed him to clear up the dues within 7 days of receipt of the letter. Complainant received the letter on 13.3.2000

6. On 14.3.2000 when the complainant reached the office of opposite party No. 3 at Rourkela, he came to know that his truck had already been sold to one party by opposite party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, although the normal cost of the truck should have been Rs. 5,00,000/- as the condition of the truck was very good and it was in a good running condition with new tyres.

7. Opposite parties in the written note of submission stated that the complainant defaulted in making payment of Rs. 1,88,400/- which was outstanding against him and a notice was served on him to clear up the dues as per the agreement, otherwise it was informed that appropriate action would be taken. Since the complainant did not make payment as per the notice dated 8.3.2000, the vehicle was sold to Madhabananda Naik of Bhadrak for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

8. Opposite parties cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), and contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, since the truck in question was used for commercial purpose and also in view of the lease agreement.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. On perusal of the records, we are of the view that the complainant has purchased the truck to earn his livelihood. The opposite parties did not give him sufficient opportunity to repay the loan except a notice on 8.3.2000 which was received by the complainant on 13.3.2000, for making payment of the defaulted amount. The complainant reached on 14.3.2000 in the office of opposite party No. 3 at Rourkela to know about his truck, but he came to know that the vehicle had already been sold to one party by opposite party No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, whereas the cost of the vehicle would be Rs. 5,00,000/- as the truck was in good running condition with new tyres.

10. The opposite parties had is