JUDGMENT

DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Briefly stated the facts as per the complaint are that Dilip Debnath/the respondent/the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) intended to purchase a vehicle model no LPT-1512 from the appellant/the opposite party no 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the opposite party no 1’) for his business purpose. The complainant visited office of the opposite party no 1 where an agreement was signed between them and the complainant was advised to deposit down payment. The complainant accordingly had deposited Rs. 3,30,500/- in three instalments i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- on 05.01.2020, Rs. 1,60,000/- on 31.10.2020 and Rs. 20,500/- on 03.11.2020 for purchase of vehicle model TATA LPT-1512 from the opposite party no.1 against proper receipts bearing serial nos. 12401 and 12414 for amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 20,500/- respectively issued by Bijan Debnath, authorized signatory/the opposite party no 2/the proforma appellant no 1 on behalf of the opposite party no1. The complainant deposited Rs.1,60,000/- in the account of the opposite party no 1 through bank transfer under the account bearing no 3569110010051404 on 31.10.2020 in Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd. The complainant deposited entire demand amount within 31.10.2020. The vehicle model TATA LPT-1512 was to be delivered after receipt of the entire down payment of Rs,3,30,500/-. The opposite party no 1 even after receipt of down payment has avoided and denied to deliver the possession of the vehicle model TATA LPT-1512 to the complainant on one pretext or the other. The complainant on 06.11.2021 sent a request letter for delivery of the vehicle model TATA LPT-1512 or to refund the down payment of Rs. 3,30,500/-. The complainant also issued a legal notice on 10.08.2021 to the opposite party no. 1 which was not replied. The complainant claimed to be a small businessman and his entire family depends upon income earned from his business. The complainant managed the booking amount of Rs. 3,30,500/- from his small income with hope to expand his business but the opposite parties played a fraud and also harassed him which clearly indicated the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no 1. The complainant being aggrieved filed present consumer complaint bearing C.C. no.416 of 2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Commission’) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the advance booking amount of Rs.3,30,500/- for purchase of the vehicle model TATA LPT-1512 along with interest @ 6% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the compensation for causing harassment and mental agony etc. to the complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the complainant, the complainant also filed an earlier complaint vide C.C. No. 35 of 2020 which was disposed of on 06.09.2022 with liberty granted to the complainant to file a fresh complainant as technical mistake on the point of territorial jurisdiction was involved therein.

2. The opposite parties no 1 & 3 filed written statement wherein stated that the complainant is not entitled to any relief under the equitable jurisdiction against the opposite parties no 1 & 3 and denied the allegations as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant is not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. The opposite parties no 1 & 3 on merits stated that one Rana Das booked the vehicle with the opposite parties on down payment of Rs.3,30,500/- out of the total amount of Rs. 20,88,800/- but said Rana Das could not purchase the vehicle and had entered into an agreement with the complainant and the complainant had agreed to pay remaining instalments to the opposite parties. The complainant paid only two instalments and did not pay further instalments. The finance company probably due