Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member

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 to this reason had confiscated the vehicle. The complainant had suppressed the actual facts and had filed present complaint to grab the vehicle from the opposite parties. The opposite parties no 1 & 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. The District Commission in order dated 30.03.2023 considered following points:-

                   1. 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?

                   2. Whether the complaint of the complainant is barred on the ground of commercial purpose?

                   3.1 The District Commission observed that the crux of the dispute was that whether the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- against receipt dated 31.10.2020 and the complainant entered into shoes of Rana Das in respect of vehicle model no TATA LPT 1212. The District Commission further observed that the complainant vide order dated 24.11.2023 was directed to file an affidavit which was filed on 20.02.2024. The complainant in para 7 of the affidavit asserted that "I had given them Rs. 3,50,500/- as down payment, so suddenly they had given me a vehicle the owner of which was one Rana Das as per registration which was TATA-LPT-1212 model and said Rana Das taken the vehicle through Hire Purchase from Tata Motors, and told me that as the purchaser Rana Das is not giving regular instalment, so, if I want I can take the vehicle temporarily and I have to pay instalment regularly on behalf of Rana Das and when my vehicle come then they will deliver the same to me which is Tata LPT 1512.........the company had taken my signature only in some white papers..........as I could not pay instalments so the company had taken the said vehicle from me which was TATA-LPT-1212 of Rana Das". The District Commission accordingly observed that the above averments proved that the complainant stepped into the shoes of Rana Das and was delivered the Tata vehicle Model No.LPT 1212 instead of model no LPT 1512. The District Commission further observed that the complainant knowingly took delivery of the vehicle model no LPT 1212 instead of LPT 1512. The complainant after supressing this fact approached the District Commission for compensation against the vehicle i.e. TATA LPT 1512 but remained silent about vehicle LPT 1212 as apparent from affidavit. The District Commission opined that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.

4. The complainant being aggrieved filed the Appeal bearing Case No. A. 28 of 2014 titled as 'Dilip Debnath V Progressive Automobiles Private Limited and others' before Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala: West Tripura (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') for setting aside the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the District Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 14.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Order') set aside the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the District Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal in favour of the complainant holding that the 'complainant' is a consumer under the purview of definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and as such the complaint is maintainable. The State Commission observed that opposite parties admitted receipt of Rs. 3,30,500/- for selling of the vehicle model no. LPT 1512 but requested the complainant to receive the vehicle in the name of Rana Das who was owner of the vehicle model LPT 1212. The State Commission further observed that the complainant received the vehicle but was confiscated due to failure to pay instalments. The State Commission after referring para no 11 of the written statement filed by the opposite parties no 1 & 3 believed that the payment which was made by Rana Das to the opposite parties for purchasing the vehicle bearing model no LPT 1212 has already been remanded to Sri Rana Das. The State Commission also observed that Rana Das and the complainant had deposited down payment of Rs. 3,30,500/- to the opposite parties for purchasing different types of the vehicles i.e. the complainant made down payment for the purchase of the vehicle bearing model no LPT 1512 and Rana Das made down payment to purchase the vehicle bearing no LPT 1212. The State Commission also observed that there was no vehicle bearing model no LPT 1512 and as such the opposite parties requested the complainant to use the vehicle which was in the name of Rana Das and thereafter the complainant entered into an agreement with Sri Rana Das. The complainant was never delivered vehicle model no LPT 1512. The State Commission further opined that the complainant was a consumer under the Act. The State Commission also observed that the agreement itself was null and void and the opposite parties involved in the illegal trade practice. The State Commission accordingly set aside order passed by the District Commission and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 3,30,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date the complainant made the last payment i.e. from 30.11.2020 besides imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/. It was further directed that the order was to be complied within 30 days from the date of order, failing which it would carry interest @ 9% per annum and further if any delay is caused, the opposite parties shall be liable to pay further compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. The relevant portion of the impugned Order of the State Commission is extracted herein below:

                   13. Admittedly, both Rana Das and the appellant had deposited the down payment of Rs.3,30,500/- to the respondents for purchasing their different types of vehicles. As a matter of reiteration, the appellant made the down payment for purchasing the vehicle bearing model No.LPT 1512 and Rana Das made down payment to purchase the vehicle bearing model No.LPT 1212.

                   14. It is the case of the appellant-complainant that since there was no vehicle bearing model No. LPT 1512, the respondent requested the appellants to use the vehicle in the name of Rana Das, which was also hypothecated to in the name of Rana Das for the time being and after few days the vehicle for which the appellant had made the down payment, was delivered to him and for that reason at the Initiative of the respondents, the appellant had entered into an agreement with Sat Rana Das.

                   15. The further case of the appellant is that he had never seen Sri Rana Das. It is further revealed that Rana Das had stopped payment of installments since he was not delivered with the vehicle for which he made down payment of Rs.3,30,500/- Despite repeated requests, the respondents did not deliver the vehicle which the appellant booked for, bearing model No. LPT 1512. Ultimately he was forced to issue a demand notice through his learned counsel, but even then, no result was yielded, forcing him to approach the learned District Commission for redress.

                   16. From the complaint application, it is apparent that the appellant-complainant himself is a driver/owner of the vehicle and he purchased the vehicle to earn his own livelihood. So, the finding of the learned District Commission that he is not a 'consumer' under the purview of definition of Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant-complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed by him before the learned District Commission is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

                   17. Now, coming to the next point as urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the agreement itself is null and void because it is consistent within the provisions of India Contract Act. This apparent consists of unlawful terms and conditions. It is further apparent that that the respondent had never cancelled the hypothecation they made with Rana Das who was the owner of the vehicle bearing model No. LPT 1212. According to us, it is an utter legal trade practice which should not be tolerated by this Commission

                   18. In view of this, the final order passed by the learned District Commission is lable to be interfered with.

                   19. As a sequel, we direct the respondents to make refund of Rs.3,30,500/to the appellant-complainant within a period of 30 days from today. The said amount of money shall carry Interest @6% per annum to be paid from the date the appellant-complainant made the last down payment i.e. from 03.11.2020.

                   Since, we have held that the respondents have involved in legal trade practice and unnecessarily dragged the appellant-complainant into the litigation, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- and a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant-complainant. The entire money shall be paid to the appellant complainant within a period of 30 days from today, falling which it will carry interest @9% per annum. Further, if any delay is caused, the respondents shall be liable to pay further compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant complainant.

                   Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with C.C.416 of 2022 stands set aside and quashed.

5. The opposite party no 1 being aggrieved filed the present Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 325 of 2025 titled as 'Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others V Shri Dilip Debnath' before this Commission to challenge the impugned order on the grounds that the State Commission has failed to consider that there was no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no 1. The State Commission did not consider that the complainant stated that he made payment of Rs. 3,30,500/- for purchase of vehicle model no LPT 1512 in 3 instalments but produced two receipts issued for model no LPT 1512. The complainant concealed receipt no 12414 which was issued for model no LPT 1212 which was produced by the opposite party no 1. The complainant had entered into an agreement with Rana Das for purchase of vehicle model no 1212 which was delivered to the complainant and later on seized by the finance company for non-payment of the instalments. The State Commission did not consider affidavit filed by the complainant wherein deposed that vehicle model no LPT 1212 was delivered in place of vehicle LPT 1512 in terms of the Agreement dated 11.11.2020. The opposite party no 1 also challenged the impugned order on various other grounds.

                   5.1 The opposite party no 1 in present second appeal has formulated following substantial questions of law:-

                   a) Whether a dispute can be adjudicated in absence of proper and necessary parties?

                   b) Whether the Complainant was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

                   c) Whether SCDRC can pass a judgment against a party who has been deleted from the array of parties before the DCDRC?

                   d) Whether refund can be granted in absence of any deficiency on the part pf the Appellant?

                   e) Whether the SCDRC can set aside a finding, which was never made never made by the DCDRC?

                   f) Whether SCDRC can adjudicate upon a dispute involving complicated questions of law and fact, in a summary jurisdiction?

                   g) Whether the SCDRC can go beyond the pleadings and hold against the admissions made therein?

6. We have heard Sh. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate who advanced arguments for the opposite party no 1. We have perused the record including the orders passed by the District Commission and the State Commission. The complainant send short synopsis which is perused.

7. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no 1 and the opposite party no 1 is not liable to refund the amount received from the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party no 1 for purchase of vehicle model no LPT 1512 and paid two instalments against the receipts. The counsel further argued that one Rana Das also booked another vehicle model no LPT 1212 with the opposite party no 1. The complainant entered into an agreement dated 12.11.2020 with Rana Das for purchasing vehicle model no. Tata-LPT-1212 which was earlier booked by Rana Das. The complainant as per agreement made payment towards vehicle model no 1212 and receipt was issued to the complainant and earlier payments made towards vehicle model no 1512 were adjusted towards model no 1212. The complainant paid total amount of Rs. 3,30,500/- in 3 instalments. The complainant availed loan from Tata Motors Finance Limited and vehicle model no 1212 stood in the name of Rana Das. The complainant committed default in repayment of loan amount and as such vehicle model no 1212 was seized by the finance company. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 during arguments attacked impugned order and also referred affidavit filed by the complainant in pursuance of order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the District Commission and stated that the complainant stepped into shoe of Rana Das. The counsel for the opposite party no 1 ultimately argued that the impugned order be set aside.

                   7.1 The complainant did not appear in person before this Commission to advance arguments but sent written arguments. It is stated in the written arguments that the present second appeal is not maintainable as it does not involve any substantial question of law. The complainant is a consumer as per the Act. The complainant to expand his business of selling vegetables desired to purchase a TATA vehicle model LPT 1512 and accordingly approached office of the opposite party no 1. The complainant has agreed to buy said vehicle at cost of Rs. 20,88,800/- and to make down payment of Rs. 3,30,500/- which was made in three instalments of Rs.1,50,000/- on 05.01.2020 and Rs. 1,60,000/- on 31.10.2020 and paid Rs. 20,500/- on 03.11.2020 through NEFT. It is further stated that after receiving down payment of Rs. 3,30,500/- for purchase of vehicle model no 1512, the opposite party no 1 harassed the complainant and did not supply said vehicle. The opposite party no 1 created a false story in respect of vehicle model no. TATA LPT 1212 which was in name of Rana Das.

8. The agreement executed between the complainant and Rana Das was not created in accordance with law. The complainant has never made any agreement with Rana Das. The opposite party has created a false agreement so that Rs.3,30,500/- as deposited by the complainant as down payment in respect of vehicle bearing model no. Tata LPT 1512 should not be returned to the complainant. The District Commission had issued notice to Rana Das to ascertain the actual facts about the agreement but Rana Das never appeared before the District Commission to adduce evidence in respect of the agreement dated 12.11.2020 and the alleged agreement which was filed by the opposite party no.1 at the belated stage of Second Appeal cannot be admitted or believed. The complainant in the written arguments ultimately argued that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1 and prayed that the Second Appeal be dismissed.

9. It is reflecting that the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for purchase of a vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1512. The complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt no. 12401 dated 05.01.2020 and Rs. 20,500/- on 03.11.2020 pertaining to the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT -1512. The opposite party no. 1 could not deliver the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT -1512 to the complainant. The opposite party no.1 also sold another vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1212 to one Rana Das for a total consideration of Rs.20,88,800/- who could not pay the entire sale consideration. However, Rana Das had entered into a deed of agreement with the complainant whereby Rana Das agreed to sell the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1212 due to his urgent financial necessities for a total consideration of Rs.20,88,800/-. Rana Das also received down payment of Rs. 3,30,500/- from the complainant including the payment of Rs. 1,60,000/- vide receipt no. 13008 dated 11.11.2020 and such receipt was pertaining to the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1212. The agreement dated 12.11.2020 was also signed by the complainant and Rana Das. It is reflecting that the said Rana Das got financed the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1212 from Tata Motor Finance Limited for finance amount of Rs.18,73,178/- and the said liability was undertaken by the complainant in terms of the agreement dated 12.11.2020. It is also appearing that the complainant also could not strict to the finance discipline and as such financer has seized the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212.

10. The complainant vide Order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the District Commission was directed to file an affidavit wherein deposed the fact that the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 by stepping into the shoes of Rana Das in terms of agreement dated 12.11.2020. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant in para no. 7 of the affidavit deposed that the opposite party no.1 could not deliver the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1512 despite making down payment of Rs.3,50,500/- but delivered the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 to the complainant which was owned by one Rana Das and Rana Das has taken the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 on hire purchase and was not making the payment of regular installments of finance amounts. The complainant further deposed that he has never purchased any vehicle from Rana Das and also denied the execution of the agreement dated 12.11.2020. However the complainant has also deposed that he could not pay the installment to the company and as such the vehicle model no. Tata LPT-1212 owned by Rana Das was seized by the company.

11. The perusal of the agreement dated 12.11.2020 which is in fact an arrangement between the complainant and Rana Das vide which he has agreed to accept the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 after adjusting down payment of Rs.3,30,500/- made to the opposite party no.1. The District Commission in order dated 30.03.2023 rightly observed that the complainant had stepped into shows of Rana Das and was delivered the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 instead of the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1512. The District Commission also observed that the complainant has taken the delivery bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 knowingly. Accordingly, the District Commission has dismissed the complaint after considering the material on record in right direction.

12. The State Commission observed that the agreement dated 12.11.2020 was null and void being inconsistent under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and was comprising unlawful conditions. However, the agreement dated 12.11.2020 reflects that it was not agreement in strict sense but it was the mutual arrangement between the complainant and Rana Das whereby the complainant has agreed to take the delivery of the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 in place of the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1512. The State Commission should not have rejected the agreement dated 12.11.2020 which was also signed by the complainant.

13. We are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the opposite party no.1 that there was no deficiency of service and the opposite party no.1 is not liable to refund the amount as received towards down payment from the complainant and further the complainant had entered into an agreement dated 12.11.2020 with Rana Das for purchase of the vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1212 which was earlier booked by Rana Das.

14. We have also considered the arguments sent by the complainant as detailed herein above. We are not in agreement with arguments as stated by the complainant. It is reflecting that the complainant could not make the payments to the financer i.e. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. pertaining to the vehicle bearing model no. Tata-LPT-1212 and due to this reason vehicle was seized by the finance company. The complainant filed present complaint before the District Commission to seek the refund of the down payment which is stated to have been made to the opposite party no.1 for the purpose of purchase of a vehicle bearing model no.Tata-LPT-1512. The District Commission has taken the right view while passing the order dated 30.03.2023 and the impugned Order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained under the law and facts and is liable to be set aside.

15. In view of the above discussion, the present Second Appeal involved substantial question of law i.e. whether refund can be granted in absence of deficiency in service and accordingly present second appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the State Commission is set-aside and the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the District Commission is affirmed. The pending application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.