Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/100

ELDECO INFRASTRUCTURE & POOP. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CONTINENTAL AUTO SERVICES & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 17.03.2016

Complaint No. 100/11

 

In the matter of:

Eidelco Infrastructure & Prop. Ltd.

Office at 201-212, Splendour Forum,

2^nd Floor, Plot No.3, Jasola District Centre,

New Delhi-110044.

Through its Authorized Representative

Shri Vishnu Dutt.                                                             …..........Complainant

 

Versus

1. Continental Auto Service,

National High Way No.2,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi.

 

2. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.,

A-1, M.I.D.C. Five Star Industrial Area,

Area Shendra, Aurangabad,

1.  

Through its Managing Director

Mr. Marie Lagey.

 

3. Jai Auto,

A-39, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi.                                                        …....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

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

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. This order will dispose of application moved by Op-1 for dismissing the complaint on the ground that complainant is not a consumer in terms of definition of consumer in Consumer Protection Act. According to OP, the vehicle was purchased on 31.08.2009 and there was absolute compliance of warranty policy.  As on 11.09.2011, the vehicle have logged in excess of some 33900 odd kilometres over 24 months which may convincingly repulse the allegation of subject vehicle being inherently defective. By way of application the OP has sought indulgence to dispose of preliminary objection before taking up the complaint for hearing.

 

2. Sum and substance of the application is that vehicle has been purchased by company. The same has been used for commercial purpose as complainant is the big commercial concern and main object of the complainant is to earn profit by indulging huge commerce activities.

 

3. The complainant has filed reply to the aforesaid application.  It has stated that vehicle was purchased for exclusive use of Managing Director Sh. Pankaj Bajaj. This has been so mentioned in the complaint also.

 

4. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for OP has relied upon decision of National Commission in First Appeal No.723/06 titled as General Motors India P Limited Vs. G.S. Fertilizers P Ltd & Another decided on 07.02.2013. In para-9 of the judgement it was held that though vehicle had been purchased for use of MD, still it amounts to purchase for commercial purpose. The reason being that MD of a private limited company would obviously not use the vehicle for self employment to earn his livelihood.

 

5. Similar view was taken by National Commission in First Appeal No.07/2013 titled as Belmaks Solutions P Ltd. Vs. Skoda auto & Another decided on 16.04.2013. The facts of the cited cases are squarely the same as in the present case. The complaint was dismissed by State Commission as not maintainable as car had been purchased for commercial purpose i.e. for the use of MD of appellant which is a private limited company. The same was upheld by the National Commission.

 

6. In application, reference has been made to decision of this Commission in First Appeal No.490/04 titled as Deep Blue Express Vs. Nissan Auto P Ltd. Decided on 26.02.2013. Reference has also been made to decision of this Commission in Complaint Case No.321/09 titled as Arch Finance Ltd. Vs. Silvertone Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 10.05.2013.

 

7. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed, complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant may seek his remedy by filing a Civil Suit after excluding the time spent in these proceedings as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583.   
8. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

            

(S. C. Jain)Member

245.