27th day of February 2013
CC. 7/13 filed on 1/1/2013
Complainant : Joseph.M.K., Manivelil House, Inchakkundu.P.O.,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.Biju Joseph Edakkalathur, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Ashok Leyland Ltd. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Chennai,
rep. by General Manager.
2. T.V.Sundar Iyengar & Sons, NH 47, Bye Pass Road,
Ollukkara, Thrissur.
ORDER
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complaint is filed by a bus owner against the respondents by alleging the defect of battery purchased from respondents. It is the case that the respondents assured 18 months warranty for the goods purchased at the time of purchase. It is stated that he is self employed as care taker cum driver of the bus managing the entire day to day affairs of bus service. There is no averment that he is doing the bus service as a livelihood by means of self employment. A bus owner cannot plead the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The bus service cannot conduct by him alone. If he is driving the vehicle there is another person for collecting money from the people. It is no doubt that service of others is very essential for conducting bus service. So he cannot plead ‘livelihood’ and ‘self employment’ as sated in section 2(d)(ii) to file complaint before the Consumer Forum. He is a commercial consumer and is excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The commercial users cannot invoke jurisdiction of consumer agencies for their grievance. In 2012(3) CPR NC 227 it is held by our Hon’ble National Commission that commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint. It is observed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that where a consumer buys goods for commercial purpose and avails the service attached to the goods in the nature of warranty he cannot be considered to be a consumer even for the purpose of services during the warranty period in view of amendment of Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act. In Sathish Chanda Gupta and Sons V.Klick Nixon Limited 2010(3)CPC 520 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that illustrating by example Supreme Court held that a person who purchases an autorickshaw to ply it by himself on hiring for earning his livelihood or a person who purchases a truck for plying it as public carrier by himself or a person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it by himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. But a person who purchases an autorickshaw or a truck or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated by any other person, he would not be a consumer. In the present case the complainant is not a consumer in view of the above circumstances. So the complaint is rejected as not maintainable before the Forum.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of February 2013.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Nil
Id/-
President
