In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 200 / 2006 1) BLJ PLYLAM MARKETING (P) LTD., 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Head Office, A-30, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44 2) M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (East), Block-GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. 3) The Manager, Mukesh Hyundai Showroom & Workshop, PP-101, Nazrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700059. 4) The Manager, Workshop of Mukesh Hyundai, 82, Chetla Road, Kolkata-700027. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 6 Dated 1 1 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 9 . The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed by BLJ PLYLAM MARKETING (P) Ltd. against (i) Hyundai Motor India Ltd., head Office at A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44, (ii) Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (East), Plot no. F-4, Ground floor, Block- G.P. Sector-V, Salt lake City, kolkata-91, (iii) the manager, Mukesh Hyundai Showroom & Workshop, PP-101, Nazrul Islam Avenue, Krishnapur, Kolkata-59 and (iv) the Manager, Workshop of Mukesh Hyundai, 82, Chetla Road, Kolkata-27 with a prayer (a) to give a direction to the o.ps. to refund the price of the defective vehicle or alternatively replace the vehicle with a new one with a fresh warranty, (b) to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony, (c) litigation cost and (d) any other relief or reliefs as sought for the end of justice. Before going through the intricacies of the case, it is to be found out whether the complainant is a consumer as per provision of Section 2(d) of C.P. Act, 1986. The car in question was purchased in the name and title of M/s BLJ PLYLAM MARKETING (P) LTD. and not in the name of any individual (annexure of the petition of complaint). The o.p. could not adduce any evidence that the car was purchased for the use of any person exclusively. As such, it is safely accepted that the car was purchased for the purpose of business development. As such, the case is not maintainable as per C.P. Act, 1986. Hence the case is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to appropriate action before proper Forum/court. Fees paid are correct. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd_______ _____Sd_______ MEMBER PRESIDENT |
