STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION TRIPURA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/16/A/28/2024 null DILIP DEBNATH PRESENT ADDRESS - SON OF LATE BALAI DEBNATH, RESIDENT OF LEMBUCHARA, P.O.

BRAHMACHARA, P.S. TELIAMURA, KHOWAI, TRIPURA, PIN 799205NCDRC,TRIPURA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PROGRESSIVE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. & OTHERS PRESENT ADDRESS - MATH CHOWMUHANI, JAIL ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, P.S. EAST AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA, PIN 799001NCDRC,TRIPURA.

BHAJAN DEBNATH PRESENT ADDRESS - GENERAL MANAGER/AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OF PROGRESSIVE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., MATH CHOWMUHANI, JAIL ROAD, BANAMALIPUR, P.S. EAST AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA, PIN 799001NCDRC,TRIPURA.

PROGRESSIVE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - NEAR KATHIA BABA ASHRAM, BY PASS ROAD, NH-44, P.O.

NAGICHARA, P.S. SREENAGAR, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA, PIN 799004NCDRC,TRIPURA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH , PRESIDENT MRS. DALIA SAHA , MEMBER MR. JHANTU DEBNATH , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

MR. S. PAL, MR. A. G. CHOWDHURY (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

MR. S. CHOUDHURY (Advocate)

DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

Heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-

complainant and Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-

opposite parties, Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as respondents).

1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with C.C.416 of 2022, titled as Shri Dilip Debnath Vs Progressive Automobiles Pvt.

Ltd. and Others.

2. The facts elucidated in the complaint may be reproduced here-in-under:-

The appellant-complainant had filed a complaint application against the respondents stating, inter alia that the appellant-complainant being a businessman deposited Rs.3,30,500/- in three installments for purchasing a vehicle (model No.TATA LPT 1512) from the respondents, but ultimately, the respondents showing various reasons did not deliver the vehicle to the appellant-complainant although the appellant-complainant had deposited the sum of Rs.3,30,500/-. Lastly, on 06.11.2021, the appellant-complainant sent request letter, but in vain. On 10.08.2021, the appellant served a legal notice, but the respondents did not heed any response.

Hence, feeling aggrieved, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint application before the learned District Commission.

3. The respondents having receipt of notice of the complaint application filed their written objections wherein they denied the statements of the appellant-complainant and pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and further pleaded that one Rana Das booked the vehicle from the respondents no.1 and 3 herein, on down payment of Rs.3,30,500/- out of the total amount of Rs.20,88,800/-. Ultimately, Rana Das due to some reason could not purchase the vehicle and entered into an agreement with the appellant-complainant that the appellant would pay the installments to the respondents, but the appellant after payment of two installments had stopped payment of remaining installments. As such, the Finance Company confiscated the vehicle. Hence, the appellant-complainant has suppressed the real fact.

4. Both the appellant and the respondents have filed their respective evidences with relevant documents.

5. During the course of argument, the learned District Commission had taken up the following points for discussions and decision:-

“(i) Whether the complainant ever entered into any Higher Purchase Agreement with the

O.Ps for purchasing vehicle of Model No-TATA LPT 1212 and entered into an agreement with Rana Das who originally booked such vehicle from the O.Ps?

(ii) Whether the complaint of the complainant is barred on the ground of commercial purpose?”

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned District Commission disposed of the complaint app