Delhi

StateCommission

CC/10/1

HIM URJA PRIVATE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BMW INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                 Date of Arguments: 28.03.2016

 Date of Decision: 06.04.2016

 

Complaint Case No.1/10

In the matter of:

M/s Him Urja Pvt. Ltd.,

C-14, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.                                         ………….Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Tower-B, 7^th Floor,

Block No.8, DLF, Cyber City,

Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002.                               ….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes        

 

O.P. Gupta, Member(Judicial)

 

JUDGMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed on the allegations that complainant is a private limited company incorporated under companies Act. OP no.1 has appointed OP no.2 under management / charge / supervision and control of OP no.3 to undertake sales, marketing and provide after sale services/ repairs in respect of cars bearing brand name BMW, OP-3 is Principal Officer and person directly responsible for conduct of affairs of OP no.2. Complainant purchased high end premium luxury BMW car namely BMW, M-3 Cabriolet Model no.DL3CBM1378 after paying Rs.85,00,000/-. The car developed serious trouble/ mall functioning / manufacturing defects soon after delivery was taken on 30.6.2009. Within a short span the car had to be sent for repair more than 4 times and remained with the OP for over 2 months approximately. On 15.7.2009 complainant contacted OP no.2 who collected illegal/ unjustified amount under the garb of routine service charges amounting to Rs.24,308/-. Soon thereafter the problem persisted and after having covered barely 4000 k.m. vehicle again stated giving trouble. This time the engine developed serious fault causing it to switch of more frequently. The matter was reported on 17.9.2009 inspection were done on 21.9.2009, OP collected Rs.5585/- towards certain charges and labour charges. The car was handed over to complainant on 7.10.2009, cost of part replaced was Rs.35,888/-, had the car not been under warranty, it would have been paid by complainant. The very next day i.e. 8.10.2009 not only same problem resurfaced but this time problem escalated and was noticed, there was ignition failure. The complaint goes on to add the problems. Ultimately complainant has prayed to direct the OP to replace the vehicle with brand new vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle together with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for loss suffered by him. It has also prayed for directing OP to pay Rs.1,92,900/- which it was forced to pay HDFC Bank against auto loan availed by it.

          OP-1 filed written statement dated 1.7.2010, OP-2 and 3 filed separate reply dated 30.6.2010.

          Complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OP-2, it filed affidavit of Shri Siddharth Gupta, one of its Director, in evidence.

          OP-2 and 3 filed affidavit of Shri J.S. Harit, Asstt. Manager (Legal) in evidence. OP-1 filed affidavit of Shri Rodney Alan Woods, Director in evidence.

          Complainant filed written submission. OP-1 filed written submissions. Thereafter complainant filed additional written submissions and OP-1 also filed additional written submission.

          We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. It is not necessary to enter into the detailed controversy as complaint can be disposed on short ground that car purchased by company not exclusively for personal use by Director is not covered under the definition of consumer. For this reliance may be placed on decision of National Commission in Pharos Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V/s Tata Motor Pvt. Ltd. IV (2014) CPJ 525. To the same effect is the decision of National Commission is Shivom Projects Pvt. Ltd. V/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., I (2015) CPJ 422.

          The counsel for the complainant cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab University V/s. UTI (2015) to SCC 669. The same is altogether in different context. Neither it pertains to purchase of car nor by company. The same has no applicability

          For the aforesaid reasons the complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable under consumer protection act. However, the complainant would be at liberty to file a civil suit after excluding the time spent in present proceedings as per decision of Hon’ble Surpeme Court in Laxmi Engg. Works V/s. PSG Indl. Instt. 1995(3) SCC 583.

          Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

MEMBER