ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 24.09.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.43/2016 title Mrs. Meenakshi Kumari & Anr. vs. L&T Finance Limited & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Mrs. Meenakshi and Anr. filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite parties granted loan of Rs. 1053000/-(Ten lac fifty three thousand) for the purchase of vehicle on dated 23.07.2014. It is pleaded that 59 equal loan instalments were fixed at the rate of Rs. 24925/-(Twenty four thousand nine hundred twenty five) per instalment. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased for earning livelihood. It is pleaded that complainant could not repay the instalments amount. It is pleaded that opposite parties took the possession of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that opposite parties sold the vehicle behind the back of complainant. It is pleaded that vehicle was sold at the meager amount of Rs. 550000/-(Five lac fifty thousand) by opposite parties. It is pleaded that actual cost of the vehicle was Rs. 1239600/-(Twelve lac thirty nine thousand six hundred). It is further pleaded that opposite parties committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 689600/-(Six lac eighty nine thousand six hundred) along-with interest @ 15% per annum. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 150000/-(One lac fifty thousand). In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 30000/-(Thirty thousand) as litigation charges. In addition complainant also sought relief of waiver of notice of payment of balance amount. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed inter se the parties. It is pleaded that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer because vehicle was used for commercial purpose. It is further pleaded that matter pertains to rendition of accounts and learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainants are regular defaulters in making repayment of loan amount. It is further pleaded that vehicle was surrendered by complainant herself. It is further pleaded that matter pertains to rendition of accounts and learned District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainants are regular defaulters in making repayment of loan amount. It is further pleaded that vehicle was surrendered by complainant herself. It is pleaded that after the surrender of vehicle demand notice was issued to the complainants on 05.12.2014 for payment of outstanding amount. It is further pleaded that another notice was also given to the complainant on 23.12.2014. It is pleaded that thereafter other notice was given on dated 21.11.2015 for payment of outstanding dues. It is further pleaded that complainant herself agreed to pay loan amount of Rs. 1053000/-(Ten lac fifty three thousand) along-with flat interest @ 7.93% per annum in 59 monthly instalments of Rs. 24925/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred twenty five). It is pleaded that complainant did not pay instalments continuously for two years. It is further pleaded that as per loan cum hypothecation agreement matter be referred to Arbitrator. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum allowed the consumer complaint and ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 48733/-(Forty eight thousand seven hundred thirty three) along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) for mental harassment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainants filed affidavit of Meenakshi in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is unemployed and purchase the vehicle to earn livelihood. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs. 1053000/-(Ten lac fifty three thousand) in favour of deponent for purchase of vehicle. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainants filed affidavit of Meenakshi in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is unemployed and purchase the vehicle to earn livelihood. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs. 1053000/-(Ten lac fifty three thousand) in favour of deponent for purchase of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that instalment to the tune of Rs. 24925/-(Twenty four thousand nine hundred twenty five) was also paid to the opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that deponent could not repay loan instalments up to April 2015. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties took the possession of vehicle and sold the vehicle in meager amount of Rs. 578920/-(Five lac seventy eight thousand nine hundred twenty). There is further recital in affidavit that actual costs of vehicle was Rs. 1239600/-(Twelve lac thirty nine thousand six hundred). 8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Rohit Saini Manager Legal. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 is financial institution incorporated and registered under Companies Act 1956 and is providing financial facilities to the customers of loan etc. There is recital in affidavit that complainants wilfully committed default in payment of loan instalments. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. There is recital in affidavit that as per Arbitration clause the matter should be referred to Arbitrator. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is decided accordingly. As per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended w.e.f. 15.03.2003 commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In the complainant complainants have specifically mentioned that they have purchased the vehicle for earning their livelihood. Even as per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 any service of financial agency would fall within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that matter of complainant falls within Consumer Protection Act 1986. 10. Even as per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 any service of financial agency would fall within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that matter of complainant falls within Consumer Protection Act 1986. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that in view of the Arbitration clause in the loan cum hypothecation agreement executed between the parties present consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is held that remedy under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is additional remedy and it is held that complaint under section Consumer Protection Act 1986 is maintainable as additional remedy despite of Arbitration clause in loan cum hypothecation agreement. See 2012 (2) SCC 506 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. See 2000 (5) SCC 294 Skypak Couriers Ltd. vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that matter falls within the concept of accounts dispute and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that matter falls within the definition of service defined under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it is held that present matter covers under Consumer Protection Act 1986. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complainants did not pay loan instalments and committed regular defaults in payment of loan installments and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Opposite parties did not place on record terms and conditions of loan cum hypothecation agreement. No reasons assigned by opposite parties as to why opposite parties did not place on record certified copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement in order to prove the terms and conditions of agreement. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties for non-production of terms and conditions of loan cum hypothecation agreement. 13. State Commission is of the opinion that after issuance of demand notice of loan amount opposite parties were under legal obligation to place on record Panchnama drawn and signed by witness relating to possession of vehicle. In the present matter no Panchnama drawn and signed by witness placed on record by opposite parties relating to possession of vehicle. 14. 13. State Commission is of the opinion that after issuance of demand notice of loan amount opposite parties were under legal obligation to place on record Panchnama drawn and signed by witness relating to possession of vehicle. In the present matter no Panchnama drawn and signed by witness placed on record by opposite parties relating to possession of vehicle. 14. State Commission is of the opinion that it was expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice that public notice of sale of vehicle should be issued in two leading newspapers having vernacular language and having sufficient circular in locality prior to sale of vehicle by public auction in order to obtain maximum sale value of vehicle. Opposite parties did not place on record public notice in two leading newspapers qua sale of vehicle. State Commission is of the opinion that it was expedient in the ends of justice and interest of justice to prepare inventory list at the time of sale. No inventory list at the time of sale placed on record. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties. State Commission is of the opinion that above stated facts amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainants that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum keeping in view the irregularity committed by opposite parties cited supra qua sale of vehicle. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No.43/2016 dated 24.09.2016 title Meenakshi Kumari & Anr. vs. L&T Finance Limited & Anr. is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.