Order No. 8 date: 02-05-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Both these Miscellaneous Applications are taken up together as the same are essentially the counter-application of each other. 

While by filing MA/1029/2016 the OP No. 2 challenged maintainability of the complaint, through another Miscellaneous Application being no. MA/1001/2016, the Complainant has virtually refuted the same.

It is the case of the OP No. 2 that the subject car was purchased in the name of the Complainant for its business/commercial purposes and as such, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

On the other hand, case of the Complainant is that car in question was purchased for the exclusive purpose of personal use of one of its Directors, Mr. Ravi Beriwala.  It is further stated that notwithstanding the Complainant purchased the car in its name, but the same would not generate any profit – be it directly or indirectly, and the same being used by Mr. Beriwala exclusively for his purpose use, therefore, such type of transaction cannot be considered to be a commercial one.  Thus, the complaint is very much maintainable.

We have heard the averments made by both the parties through their respective Ld. Advocates.  We have also carefully gone through the material on record.

Whenever a Company in course of its business decides to offer any perquisites to its Directors, normally a Board Resolution is passed to that effect.  However, nothing of that sort is forthcoming before us. 

Also, if Mr. Beriwala  indeed used the car for his personal use, he must have borne incidental expenditure in respect of the car like salary to driver, fuel charges, repairing charges etc.  However, not a solitary piece of document is placed on record in this regard too from the side of the Complainant.

We afraid, simply on the basis of averment of the Complainant, we cannot determine the veracity of such claim. 

In this regard, we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission referred to by the OP No. 2 [General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. G S Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Ors. – F.A. No. 723, 736/2006], wherein the Hon’ble Commission has been pleased to held that, “…. since the vehicle had been purchased by a private limited company, i.e. Respondent-Complainant for use of its MD, it was obviously for a ‘commercial purpose’ and not for the purpose of earning livelihood by self-employment.  Respondent-Complainant, therefore, did not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint was not maintainable”. 

Although the Complainant referred to two decisions of Hon’ble National Commission – (1) Harsolia Motors v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) and (2) Techno Mukund Constructions v. M/s Mercedes Benz India Ltd. in Consumer Case No. 298/2000, none of the case laws cited by it fits into the facts and circumstances vis-a-vis present dispute. 

Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, the present dispute is not adjudicable by this Commission.

Accordingly, MA/1001/2016 and MA/1029/2016 be and the same are dismissed and allowed, respectively.  Consequent thereof, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable. 

However, Complainant would be at liberty to seek Redressal of its grievance before the appropriate Forum and he may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent in pursuing his case before this Commission.