DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

M/s Barnala Steel Industries Ltd

F-17, Plot 16-A,

Jaswant Appartments,

Jamia Nagar, New Delhi                                                                  ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Koncept Automobiles Private Ltd

Registered office:

18/4, Main Arya Samaj Road,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd

2 A Bhikaji Cama Place,

Mahindra Towers,

South Delhi, New Delhi

                                      ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold without going into its merits.  The complaint has been filed in the name of M/s J.K. Tyres and Industries Ltd.  The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act.  It had purchased a car from OP2 , an authorized dealer of the said vehicle. OP1 is the manufacturer of the same. The car was fitted with tyres manufactured by OP3.  It is alleged by the complainant that the tyres fitted in the vehicle were defective and required replacement. The complainant company thus had purchased goods or obtained the services of the OPs for commercial purposes.  The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only.  Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”  

         In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”

In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S Fertilizers (P) Ltd & Anr I appeal no. 723/2006 again  a similar view was taken by the National Commission.  This was followed in the case of BELMAKS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no 07 of 2013.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.   

         A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________

           ( S N SHUKLA )                  ( RAKESH KAPOOR )

          MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT