C. C. 130 of 2017
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment exparte and ,therefore, the record is taken up.
Notice of the case was served upon the O.Ps and the O.Ps also made their appearance into the case. They filed written version of their statement and thereafter they did not turn up to contest herein. Hence, the case is heard exparte.
The complainant’s case is that he paid Rs.30,000/- out of Rs.40,000/- to the O.P on condition to supply a Motor Van after having manufactured the same with old Chasis but new parts. On 16.3.2015 the Motor Van was delivered to the complainant . But all the parts supplied by the O.Ps to the said Van were old. After a few days the said Van went out of order. The O.Ps took return of the Motor Van , but did not pay back the money received by them from the complainant. So, the complainant has prayed for refund of the said money i.e. Rs.30,000/- with interest and also for payment of compensation. Hence, the case.
The O.Ps have contended in the written statement filed by them that the petitioner is a service holder and as such, the case is not maintainable, because he purchased the Motor Van for commercial purpose. According to the O.Ps, the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- due to them for manufacturing the Motor Van and ,therefore, he has filed the instant case on false allegation only to evade payment of the said money. The complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
First of all, we have to see whether the complaint is maintainable in Law or not.
It is the fact of the complainant that he wanted to purchase the Motor Van with a view to carrying students to their school. Undoubtedly it is one kind of business which the complainant wanted to undertake. Complainant is a service holder and this has not been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint filed by him. But the real fact can never be kept suppressed; it must come to light in some way or other. The complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and there he has sworn that his occupation is a service holder. So, it goes established upon what is pointed out above that the complainant is a service holder and that the service is the main source of his income. Further, this being so, we may hold unhesitatingly that the business of carrying students to their school by a Motor Van is an enterprise for commercial gain. The Motor vehicle was purchased for such business of the complainant and such business cannot be said to be exclusively the means of earning livelihood of the complainant.
This being so, the instant case appears to be not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act, 1986. The instant case appears to be barred by limitation. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle was returned to the O.Ps on 23.3.2016 and the O.Ps made an endorsement to that effect on the cash memo filed by the complainant herein. It is the case of the complainant that the O.Ps assured him to return the money within a week of the receipt of the motor van and that he did not return the said money to the complainant on that date. The instant case is filed about more than two years after 23.3.2015. No petition for condonation of delay is filed by the complainant.
In the circumstances the case seems to be not maintainable in law ,inasmuch as it appears to be barred by limitation.
Upon what has been stated above, the complainant is found to be not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps without cost ,as being not maintainable in law.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
