DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.721/2006

M/S KAUSAR INDIA LTD.,

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

7, MILESTONE, GYANI BORDER,

CHIKAMBERPUR,

DISTRICT GHAZIABAD,

U.P.

ALSO AT

97, ANAND LOK,

NEW DELHI-110049                                                ….Complainant

Versus

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED

REGISTERED OFFICE AT

KOTHRUD,

PUNE-411038.

    ….Opposite Party

                                                   Date of Institution:     02.12.2006          Date of Order       :      25.10.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

The complainant company has filed the present complaint through its AR Shri Rajeev Gopalani, inter-alia stating that the complainant company who is engaged in the business of transportation services in refrigerated trucks for perishable goods all over India entered into an agreement with the OP for providing after market repairing and maintenance services and supply of spare parts for medium and heavy commercial vehicles all over India for its entire fleet of 60 refrigerated vans for Rs. 21,61,800/- vide agreement dated 14.09.2004. Under the agreement, OP was under an obligation to provide the consumable parts etc. in addition to maintenance, repair etc. which were detailed in the agreement. However, the services provided by the OP were deficient on several occasions as detailed in the complaint on account of which the complainant sustained losses on account of breakdown of it vehicles due to poor quality of repair and poor quality parts used by the OP to the tune of Rs. 8,63,872/- as detailed in annexure-II to the complaint. Deficiency in service on the part of OP has been pleaded. Hence, it is stated that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 13,43,233/- towards the loss incurred by the complainant due to the deficiency in services on the part of OP along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. date of loss as detailed in annexure I to III till date amounting to Rs. 2,14,555/-, thus totaling Rs. 15,57,788/- along with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, this complaint.

In the reply, OP has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that the transaction entered between the parties to dispute is a commercial one and the complainant cannot claim any relief from this Forum; that Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act clearly and specifically excludes the goods purchased or services availed for commercial purpose from the ambit of the definition of the consumer. The averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

In the rejoinder, the complainant has claimed itself to be a consumer for the services availed by the complainant.

Affidavit of Shri Rajeev Goplani, Director of the complainant has been filed in evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri  Prafulla Deulkar, Company Secretary has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP. 

Written arguments have been filed.

We have heard the oral arguments of the counsel for the OP. None has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the complainant. We have also gone through the file carefully.

From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and also un-exhibited documents filed on behalf of the parties, there is every reason to believe that the transaction in question between the parties was commercial in nature in as much as the complainant is a limited company and had entered into an agreement in question with the OP for carrying out the repairs etc. in its entire fleet of 60 refrigerated vans. The said agreement could not be said to be a business or trade for exclusively earning livelihood of some particular individual.

Keeping in view the large fleet of 60 refrigerated vans put in service by the complainant, it can easily be presumed that the complainant company mush have employed hundreds of employees and has been providing livelihood for those employees and their  families.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Hence, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 25.10.2017.