Orissa

Cuttak

CC/131/2022

Sudhansu Sekhar Choudhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

CEO-cum-Managing Director,Daimler India Commercial vehicles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B C Ghadei & associates

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.131/2022

 

          Sudhansu Sekhar Choudhury,

           S/o: Late Upendranath Swain,

           Resident of At:Plot No.398,Industrial Area,

           Ganapati Plaza,Khapuria,

           P.S:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through

its Chief Executive Officer-cum-Managing Director,

Having its corporate office at SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,

Oragadam,Mathur Post,Kundrathur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District,Tamilnadu-602105.

 

2.       Vice President(Marketing & Sales & Customer Services),

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its corporate office at SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,

Oragadam,Mathur Post,Kundrathur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District,Tamilnadu-602105.

 

3.       Vice President,Produce Engineering Entire Vehicle of India,

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its corporate office at SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,

Oragadam,Mathur Post,Kundrathur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District,Tamilnadu-602105.

 

4.       Regional Manager of    

Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Regional Office at Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

5.        BEBBCO Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorized dealer of Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.,

                  Asanbani,Chandil,Seraikela-Kharswan,

                   Jharkhanda.

 

6.       PPS MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,Jajpur,

Bharat Benz Authorized Dealer,

Plot No.817,Khaira,Badchana,Darpan,

Pin-754296,GSTIN-21AAFCP8182N1Z0.                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   04.07.2022

Date of Order:  03.08.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. B.C.Ghadei,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 to 4:               LPJ  & Partners LLP,Adv. & Associates.

                 For the O.Ps no.5 & 6:                         None.                     

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                   

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that he had purchased a Bharat Benz Bus bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AV-9917 from the O.P no.5 on 28.2.2020 after obtaining finance from ICICI Bank Ltd. having Engine No.400928D0028769 and Chassis No.MEC0054EMKP42261.  The said vehicle was also insured and was purchased by him with an intention to make it run from Cuttack to Berhampur as a commercial transport vehicle.  Soon after the purchase of said vehicle, it had developed various problems and in an interval of 3 to 4 days, it was being regularly taken to the service centre of the O.Ps situated within Chandikhol to Chhatia, for its repair and it was detained there for 1 to 2 days for being repaired.  The vehicle had a warranty period of 36 months or 3 lakh kilometre running whichever is earlier.  Within 2 years of purchase, the said Bus of the complainant had gone for repair for about twenty times and was charged a sum of Rs.4000/- at least on each time.  Being disgusted, the complainant has come up with this case and has claimed a refund of Rs.30,00,000/- from the O.Ps alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of his litigation from the O.Ps also.

          Alongwith the complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the six O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.Ps no.5 & 6 have remained exparte whereas O.Ps no.1 to 4 have contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  As per the written version of the O.Ps no.1 to 4, they admit about the purchase of Bharat Benz Bus vide Regd. No.OD-05-AV-9917 with Engine No.400928D0028769 and Chassis No.MEC0054EMKP42261 by the complainant.  The vehicle was being used for commercial purposes for which they have urged through their written version that the complainant do not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act,2019.  The O.Ps have relied upon a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble National Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Dillip Kumar Singh Vrs. Branch Manager,Citi Corp. Finance (I) Ltd. RP No.2286/2015 2017(4) CPR 39(NC). 

The other allegations as made in the complaint petition by the complainant that the O.Ps were deficient in their service and had practiced unfair trade are all denied by the said O.Ps.  According to them, as and when the vehicle was brought to their authorised service centre within the warranty period, no charge was levied but after the same since it was under the coverage of insurance, the parts which were necessary to be replaced were done with reasonable charge to that effect.  Thus, in toto, the O.Ps no.1 to 4 have specifically denied all the allegations as made by the complainant and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition it being not maintainable.

          They have filed copies of several documents also alongwith their written version in order to prove their stand. 

They have also filed evidence affidavit through one Vinay Bhagawan working as legal and compliance of the O.Ps.  After going through the contents of the evidence affidavit of the said witness as filed on behalf of the O.Ps no.1 to 4, it is noticed that the same is a reiteration of the contents of the written version of the no.1 to 4 and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

 

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.i.

          As per the C.P.Act,2019, U/S-2 a consumer is defined clearly at the definition chapter.  But here the complainant who claims himself to be a consumer and has categorically mentioned the purpose of purchasing the Bharat Benz Bus in order to use the same for commercial purposes by making it run from Cuttack to Berhampur.  Thus, the complainant can never termed here to be a consumer as per the C.P.Act,2019.  Moreso, having regard to all the pertinent decisions of the Hon’ble Higher courts as relied and filed by the contesting O.Ps, this Commission finds that the complainant in no way can be termed to be a consumer here in this case.  Accordingly, the case filed by him cannot be said to be maintainable.  This issue, thus goes against the complainant.

Issues no.ii & iii.

          From the above discussions as made at issue no.i, it is needless to examine  further in these two issues in the present case at hand.  Hence, it is so ordered;

 

                                                            ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 3^rd day of August,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President

   

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member