BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 Date of Institution: 11.5.2015
Date of Decision: 26.8.2015
Vijay Kumar, Aged 28 years, Son of Sh. Satpal, Resident of Village Mallanwala Khas, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
- Dada Motors Private Limited, Savitri Complex, G.T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.
2. Dada Motors Private Limited, Near Barnala Chowk, Ludhiana Road, Moga through its authorized signatory.
3. Dada Motors Private Limited, Moga Road, Ferozepur Cantt through its authorized signatory.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Gaurav Dhawan, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Sh.V.D Madhar, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a transporter and is owner of three commercial vehicles of Tata Motors Company and used the said vehicles for his livelihood. The complainant purchased a truck from opposite party No.3 which was financed by Tata Motors Financed Limited. The complainant has got the delivery of the vehicle on 25.9.2014 and got the insurance of the vehicle on the same day from the New India Insurance Company Limited at office of Dada Motors, Moga. The complainant alleged that opposite parties did not provide even a
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //3//
single document of the vehicle except the insurance cover note. The complainant has got delivery of the vehicle on 25.9.2014 without any invoice bill of the vehicle. Thereafter on the next day, the complainant has visited opposite party No.3 to collect the documents of the vehicle to complete the documentation of the above said vehicle as it was commitment of opposite parties to hand over the document of the vehicle to the complainant, but the opposite parties started lingering on the matter on one pretext and other, because they wanted to get the extra charges of the transportation to fetch the above said vehicle from Ludhiana to Moga, but the complainant was not ready to pay the extra charges. The complainant has visited the opposite parties again and again to collect the document of the above said vehicle, so that he could make the Registration Certificate and other documents of the vehicle. On 15.10.2014, the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- to opposite party No.1 to collect the documents of the vehicle and when the complainant asked to the opposite party No.1 to give the receipt of Rs.16,000/- then they have given the receipt dated 15.10.2014 in which it is mentioned that the amount has been received against the interest of delayed payment of above said vehicle. The opposite parties prepared the invoice bill on 31.8.2014 and delivered the same to customer
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //4//
on 18.9.2014. Further it has been pleaded that the opposite parties prepared the invoice bill on 31.8.2014 and temporary number was issued on 31.8.2014 and delivery of the vehicle has been taken by complainant on 18.9.2014 but they forget the approval letter of the Tata Motors Finance Limited which is dated 25.9.2014. The complainant is not bound to give the interest of delay payment to the opposite parties. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.16,000/- which was illegally received by the opposite parties from the complainant and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental pains, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint. In its written reply, the opposite parties took some preliminary objection interalia that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose, moreover he is not driving the vehicle himself to earn his livelihood and the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint and
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //5//
that there is no deficiency of unfair trade practices. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant failed to get vehicle financed within 7 days and the insurance was also not provided by the complainant. The opposite parties many times requested the complainant to make the payment and get the delivery of the vehicle, but the complainant putting off the matter on one pretext or the other as he could not got the vehicle financed. Later on the complainant got the vehicle financed through Libra Auto and General Finance Company and DO was issued by Libra Auto and General Finance Company on 25.9.2014 and final payment was received by the opposite parties on 8.10.2015, as such the opposite parties are entitled to get interest on the delayed payment. The complainant is liable to pay the interest upon the amount being utilized by him and for the period for which he fails to get the vehicle financed. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1to3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //6//
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
5. So far as the objection of the opposite parties that the complainant is not the consumer of the party concerned. Opposite parties have pleaded in written reply in para No.2 of the preliminary objection that the complainant has purchased the vehicles in question for commercial purpose and the complainant is not driving the vehicle for his livelihood and the complainant is running the Transport Company. So, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant himself pleaded in the para No.2 of the complaint that the complainant is a transporter and own three commercial vehicles of Tata Motors and used the said vehicle for his livelihood. Now the question arises that the person who alleged himself to be transporter and own 3 commercial vehicle of Tata Motor Company is fall under the definition of the consumer. A consumer means any person who,-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //7//
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person(but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);
Explanation:- (For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment)
6. From the pleading and evidence it is proved that complainant is not a consumer as per definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant owns three truck which he used for commercial purpose. As per
C.C. No. 188 of 2015 //8//
explanation clause the complainant is not using the truck for purpose of earning of his livelihood by means of self employment.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
26.08.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
