D. Appa Rao, President—The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she borrowed Rs. 2,60,000 to purchase a vehicle No. A.P. 09 V 5570 under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 31.10.2001 with the respondent. The respondent had seized the vehicle without orders of any Court on 6.7.2003. She committed default in repayment of amount. She requested the respondent to release the vehicle. The respondent was not the owner nor entitled to seize the vehicle. She also filed W.P. No.17495/2004 before the High Court of A.P. questioning legality of the seizure. Despite her requests the respondent did not release the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service. She had sustained a loss of Rs. 30,000 per month. Therefore, she prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,40,000 with interest @ 24% p.a., and further compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 towards mental agony and costs.

3. Respondent resisted the case. It alleged that it is a non-Banking Financial Company. The complainant is a hirer and executed the agreement. The hirer is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The defaulted hirer has no right to claim any vehicle, in any Forum,