SRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. The instant consumer case has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties but by filing this petition of the complaint, the complainant has prayed for some relief/reliefs against only the opposite party no – 1 viz. Lexus Motors Limited which are clearly enshrined in the said petition.   
2. The fact is that the complainant purchased a chassis of TATA MOTORS MAKE (BUS) from Lexus Motors Limited/the opposite party no – 1 herein, and the said authorised dealer issued a sale certificate to that effect on 31/03/2017. The complainant made an application before the RTA, South 24 Parganas for issuance of temporary registration certificate. The complainant insured the aforesaid chassis and paid the required tax. The temporary registration was valid up to 10/05/2017. The complainant made an application further before the Registering Authority for extending the validity of period of the temporary certificate and accordingly it was extended up to 09/06/2017. But the Registering Authority refused to extend further the validity period of the temporary certificate of registration or to issue a permanent certificate of registration. Thereafter NIC issued a letter dated 04/10/2017 addressed to the RTA and by this letter it was intimated that the complainant already deposited a cheque dated 31/03/2017 amounting to Rs. 62,651/- for issuance of insurance policy against the aforesaid engine and chassis of the bus. But it was very unfortunate that due to some anomalies in the record of the Ops Authorities, the complainant was compelled to keep the vehicle ideal and was not in a position to ply the said vehicle on the road. The Final Registration was not done as the RSO, KHARAGPUR was written instead of the name of the complainant in the column of Owner Name which was clearly reflected in the temporary registration details of aforesaid chassis. At this stage the complainant was in trouble and she, on several occasions, approached the opposite party no – 1 and requested to take proper steps in this regard. But the opposite party no-1 kept mum. The cause of action arose on and from 09/06/2017 when the Registering Authority refused to issue permanent certificate of registration in respect of said vehicle (BUS). Having no other alternative, the complainant knocked at the door of the Commission for getting proper reliefs as prayed for against the opposite party no-1.
3. The opposite party no-1/Lexus Motors Ltd. contested this case by filing written version stating inter alia the present case is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under the C.P. Act 1986. Actually the complainant purchased a commercial vehicle i.e. BUS in order to ply the same on the road by engaging driver, conductors, khalasi etc. Moreover there is no such averment regarding ‘self employment’ in the petition of the complaint and as such the matter does not come within the ambit of the definition of the ‘consumer’ as per this Act of 1986. The complainant purchased the chassis of bus by taking a loan amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- from Indian Bank and the same was under hypothecation. So the instant case is also not maintainable under the said Act, 1986. It is further stated that the subject chassis of bus was purchased by the answering OP from the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd, being an authorized dealer as the status of Principal to Principal basis. The subject chassis was delivered by Tata Motors Ltd. from Bhubaneswar, Orissa to the destination at Kharagpur, West Bengal for the purpose of stock transfer by Tata Motors Ltd. and to that effect the name of the owner was Tata Motors Ltd, RSO Kharagpur. The answering OP had no role in respect of granting permanent registration certificate. The RTO authority concerned should have issued permanent registration certificate to the complainant after taking necessary correction or error or disclaimer portal of Vahan maintained by concerned RTO, so that the complainant would be able to ply the aforesaid vehicle (BUS) on the public road. There is no gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly the answering OP prayed for dismissal of the petition of the complaint with exemplary cost.  
4. The opposite parties 2 to 5 did not contest the case by filing written version and as such the case was fixed for ex-parte against them.
5. In course of hearing ld. counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the bus was lying ideal for the period of 2 ½ years. The complainant was suffering from huge business loss. Moreover, the payment of loan amount also became a burden upon the complainant. All these aforesaid events were caused due to fault/gross negligence on the part of the OP no-1. Accordingly, the complainant prayed for certain reliefs against the OP no-1.
6. In course of hearing ld counsel appearing for the OP no-1 submitted that the instant CC case is not maintainable before the Commission as the bus was purchased by the complainant in order to earn more money by engaging driver, conductor and other staffs. There is no plea of self employment in the instant petition of the complaint. The matter does not come well within the ambit of the definition of the ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP no-1 had no role to issue permanent registration certificate. Due to the fault or negligence on the part of OP nos-2 to 5, the complainant did not collect the final registration certificate. There were certain errors or mistakes in the portal of VAHAN exclusively maintained by the RTO concerned and as such the complainant was not in a position to get the permanent registration certificate. After necessary correction in the said portal, the RTO concerned would be able to deliver the same to the complainant. There is no fault or gross negligence on the part of the OP no-1 and accordingly the OP no-1 prayed for dismissal of the petition of the complaint.      
7. In course of final hearing the OPs no-2 to 5 are absent after repeated calls.
8. Heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party no-1 at length and in full.
9. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a chassis of bus being no-MAT 459274G0D02915 and Diesel Engine no-497TC95CTY812615 from the OP no-1/Lexus Motor Limited by taking a loan amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- only from the Indian Bank which is clearly revealed from the paragraph no-12 and schedule of the petition of the complaint filed by the complainant.
10.  At this juncture a question has been arisen whether the complainant comes well within the purview of the definition of the ‘Consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 or not. The answer of this question should be decided at first before entering into the merit of the case.
11.  Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides the definition of the consumer. The consumer means any person who buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly 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.   
12.  In this respect this section reveals Explanation clause. 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 purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
13.  I have carefully perused Annexure-D/Sale Certificate dated 31/03/2017 issued by TATA MOTORS wherefrom it appears that the complainant purchased a Chassis of bus being no-MAT459274G0D02915 and Engine no-497TC95CTY812615 (DIESEL). This particular document also indicates that the status of the said vehicle was ‘COMMERCIAL VEHICLE’ which is clearly reflected on the top of the margin of the said document (ANX-D).  
14.  I have also perused another document i.e. Tax Invoice dated 29/04/2017 issued by the OP no-1/LEXUS MOTOR LIMITED wherefrom it also appears that the aforementioned chassis of bus purchased by the complainant was commercial vehicle which is clearly reflected on the top of the margin of the said document.
15.  It is needless to say that a bus can be operated by the driver, conductors and helpers and to that effect their engagements are highly needed in order to ply the same on the road which comes well within the purview of commercial purpose.
16.  Moreover, the complainant did not take any plea of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment in the petition of complaint.  
17.  Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the present position of law and regard being had to the submission of both sides, I am of the opinion that the instant consumer case has no leg to stand upon as the chassis of the bus in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose which does not come well within the purview of the definition of the Consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986. Accordingly the instant consumer case stands dismissed on contest against the opposite part no – 1 and dismissed ex-parte against the Ops no-2 to 5 without any order as to cost.  
18.  As per above view the instant consumer case stands disposed of.
19. Note accordingly.