Date of Filing:18.10.2007<br /> Date of Order:20.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2117 OF 2007<br /> <br /> <br /> Sumito Polymers Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Rep. By its MD, Syed Isac Basha,<br /> O/A House No.680, 13th Cross, 27th Main,<br /> H.S.R. Layout, Sector-1,<br /> Bangalore-560 102. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. Advaith Motors Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> Authorized Dealer for Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,<br /> Represented by AGM, No.32,<br /> Residency Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 025.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.,<br /> Represented by its MD,<br /> Plot No.H-1, <br /> SIPCOT Industrial Complex,<br /> Irrungattukottai, NH-4, <br /> Sri Perumbudur Taluk,<br /> Kanchipuram,<br /> Tamilnadu-602 105. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a Private Limited Company having its factory at Hoskote and office at H.S.R Layout. Everyday M.D has to ply from office at H.S.R Layout to factory at Hosakote. The complainant purchased Hyundai Accent vehicle for a sum of Rs. 7.04 lakhs on 1/1/2004. Ever since the purchase pick up of vehicle was very slow and the mileage never crossed 8 kilometers. In this regard complainant complained to the opposite parties. In spite of so many tests conducted by the opposite parties to improve the low mileage it never improved and remained around 8 kilometer/liter. Complainant submits that there is a manufacturing defect in the car. Complainant gave lawyers notice requesting to replace the new and non-defective car to the complainant. The opposite parties gave untenable reply. Hence, the complainant prayed that opposite parties may be directed to replace a new non-defective car or to pay the present value of the car and to damages of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties filed defence version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or law. The opposite parties have sent a reply to the legal notice. The opposite party No.1 is an authorized dealer of opposite party No.2. At no point of time, opposite party No.1 given any false representation. Opposite party never promised that car gives mileage of more than 14 kilometers/liter. Mileage of the car depends upon usage of car, it is maintenance, pressure of traffic in the road, quality of fuel and expertise in driving skills. There is no manufacturing defect in the car. Opposite party is not liable to replace the car. Opposite party provided service to the complainant as and when approached. There is no deficiency in service. Therefore, opposite parties have requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties and documents filed. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of car and compensation? <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The learned advocate for the complainant pressed into service the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and argued at the outset the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. Admittedly, the complainant is a company and the car in question was purchased for the company. The complainant himself in para-4 has stated that complainant is a private company having its factory at Hosakote and office at H.S.R Layout and the car was purchased for the use of the M.D to visit factory and office. So, under these circumstances, it is not in dispute that car was purchased in the name of the company. Admittedly, the company is having factory at Hosakote and office at H.S.R Layout. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act and on this count itself the complaint is not maintainable. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the opposite parties referred a decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 1(2007) CPJ 204(NC) page 204 relevant page 205 wherein it is held in para No.3 of the judgment as under:-<br /> That apart, it is not in dispute that the Car was <br /> purchased in the name of petitioner which is a company running chit fund business and purchase was, therefore, relatable to commercial purpose. Petitioner is therefore, not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) and complaint not maintainable under the Act. <br /> <br /> So, in view of the above authority of law, in this case also admittedly the car was purchased by the private limited company and the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. On this ground itself, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, on the facts also the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has not produced any broacher or undertaking or agreement of the opposite party to show that the opposite parties assured that car gives 14 kilometers mileage/liter. Therefore, in the absence of any broacher or assurance of the opposite party it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service. It is the grievance of the complainant that car is giving only 8 kilometers mileage/liter, but as said above whereis the assurance of the manufacture of car that the particular car gives 14 kilometers mileage/liter. So, under these circumstances, the complainant has miserably failed to establish or prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the absence of any evidence of expert to state that car is having a manufacturing defect it cannot be said or come to the conclusion that the particular car is having a manufacturing defect. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the law point that car being purchased by the private limited company and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. Secondly, the complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that there was any assurance by the opposite party that the particular car gives 14 kilometers/liter. So, on these two grounds the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />