STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 18.07.2018
Date of final hearing: 05.09.2024
Date of pronouncement: 13.11.2024
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 408 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Sanwal Enterprises through Sh. Rajdeep S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh, R/o Village Jharli, Tehsil Matenhail, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
…..Complainant
Versus
M.G. Motors, Village Mauja Kutana, Hisar Road, Rohtak-124001, through its proprietor.
…..Opposite Party
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member
Argued by:- Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for complainant.
Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Facts are: Complainant is a firm and Rajdeep is its proprietor. Complainant-firm purchased truck made TATA SIGNA 4018 on 15.02.2018 bearing chassis number MAT447260JAA01925, Engine number 81A84442672 from OP. It was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd. Complainant-firm applied for registration certification with RTA- Bahadurgarh. To its surprise, he (proprietor) came to know that permit of said truck could not be issued as: same chassis number has been found of another truck in Uttar Pradesh. As per plea; complainant paid three installments of loan on this ‘standing truck’ amounting to Rs.2,74,000/- by taking loan on interest @24% p.a. and suffered loss of earning amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. Complainant contacted OP, who assured that issue will be sorted out, but all in vain. Complainant sent legal notice to OP, who failed to comply it. As per plea; defaulted/disputed truck was sold to complainant and OP indulged in unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. It is pleaded that complainant is a ‘consumer’. By asserting cause of action; complaint has been filed with prayer that issue of chassis number of said truck be resolved and complainant be paid Rs.25,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and financial loss plus Rs.1,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards costs. Text of complaint is supported by affidavit of Rajdeep S/o Jagbir Singh (proprietor of complainant-firm).
2. Upon notice, OP appeared. In its defence, it is pleaded that complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed material facts. There is no deficiency on its part. Complaint is bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. Complainant is not a consumer as it is firm and doing business for profit at large and has no cause of action. Complaint is not maintainable against OP. It is pleaded that OP delivered vehicle to complainant with full satisfaction. Permit was also issued to complainant by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 19.06.2018. TATA Motors Ltd. is manufacturer of subject vehicle No. HR-63D-6319. It has not been impleaded as necessary party. Complainant has also not made concerned transport authority as necessary party in this complaint against whom it has grievance if any. By denying other pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
3. Complainant as well as OP to this lis; led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. Complainant-firm has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A of its proprietor-Sh. Rajdeep towards affirmative statement on oath and relied upon documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and its evidence was closed through counsel’s statement dated 07.11.2019. OP has tendered duly sworn affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of its Senior Operation Head-Sh. Navneet Bhatnagar and also relied upon documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed its evidence through statement of counsel dated 12.09.2022.
4. We have heard complainant as well as OP at length and with their able assistance we have minutely examined the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed as vehicle sold to him was defective, owing to its chassis number, as chassis number of vehicle purchased by complainant, was also same, qua another vehicle (truck) plied in Uttar Pradesh. To stimulate its contention complainant has relied upon document carrying subject “Error in Permit Action: Renewal of Permit (vehicle Reg. No. HR63D6319)”, purportedly of the office of RTA-Bahadurgarh. It is contended that because of above dilemma/stalemate; vehicle purchased by complainant-firm is standing idle, which has led complainant to suffer huge loss in its business. Complainant asked OP, time and again to resolve this issue and legal notice Ex.C-5 was also sent in that context, but to its dismay, no action has been taken. It is urged that unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of OP is writ large visible.
6. Refuting the contention, learned counsel for OP has urged that issue regarding correction of chassis number of subject vehicle, if there is any, so projected in this complaint does not lie within the ambit of OP who is merely a dealer of subject vehicle. Complainant-firm should have approached appropriate State’s instrumentalities for redressal of its projected grievance. Further, it is urged that complainant is not a consumer because as per its own projected stance the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and document relied upon by it (complainant) purportedly of the office of RTA-Bahadurgarh has not been proved. Further it is urged that even in this document there is no recital as to where (registering authority) the vehicle plied in UP has been registered and what is its registration number?
7. The controversy regarding complainant firm being a consumer or not is no more res-integra. Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Sunil Kohli Vs. M/s Purearth Infrastructure Limited Civil Appeal No. 9004-9005 of 2018 decided on 01.10.2019 has dealt with the controversy. The relevant extract of the above cited judgment, which is ratio of law is reproduced below:-
“If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of selfemployment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’. In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self- employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer.) As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions “used by him”, and “by means of self-employment” in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words “for the purpose of earning his livelihood” is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words.” As laid down by this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works, the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act clarifies that “in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’”. This Court went on to observe that what is “Commercial Purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.”
This being the settled legal position; this Commission holds that complainant has attired a character of ‘consumer’ and as such this complaint is maintainable.
8. Integral part of complaint revolves around the mystery behind chassis number of subject vehicle. As per stance of complainant-firm; chassis number of vehicle in question is MAT447260JAA01925 and another truck plied in Uttar Pradesh carry identical chassis number. Complainant should be very very specific while resting its plea on above facts regarding registration number of that vehicle and registering authority where it is registered. These quality pleas which were relevant, are missing in the complaint and even document Ex. C-3 relied upon by complainant does not indicate anything on these facts. There is no lead provided by complainant even through the source of this document Ex.C-3. Admittedly, no witness from the office of RTA-Bahadurgarh has stepped into the witness box to prove the credibility of document Ex.C-3. Much less than that, even this document Ex.C-3 is unsigned, undated and unnumbered. In law, onus lay upon complainant alone to prove these facts. Mere marking of document as an Exhibit will not dispense with the formal proof the same by leading evidence admissible in law. Reliance in this regard can be placed on ratio of law placed on judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases titled as: Sait Tara Ji Khim Chand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and others AIR 1971 SC 1865 and Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another AIR 2004 SC 175. Bald plea taken in complaint in above context cannot be taken as gospel truth on its face value. There is no document worth the name brought on record by complainant to stimulate its plea that chassis number MAT447260JAA01925 of subject vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-63D-6319 was also same viz-a-viz some other truck in Uttar Pradesh. At least, some document from authorities at helm of registering the vehicle in Uttar Pradesh should have been brought on record by complainant in order to aid its plea. This is particularly when, sale invoice dated 15.02.2018 of vehicle in question issued by M.G. Motors-OP depicts chassis number MAT447260JAA01925. Similarly, document pertaining to temporary certificate of registration depict same chassis number. Ex.C-1 is the registration certificate qua subject vehicle (HR-63D-6319) so issued by Authority stationed at Bahadurgarh and same also depicts chassis number of subject vehicle as MAT447260JAA01925. More so, details/particulars of subject vehicle are also available on record of RTA-Jhajjar at Bahadurgarh and these details in certain terms depict that chassis number of subject vehicle as MAT447260JAA01925. This Commission is not oblivious of the fact that vehicle in question has been manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd. and it is only said manufacturer; who engrave chassis number upon vehicle manufactured by it. Said Tata Motors is not a party in the present case. In view of above discussion, this Commission is of the firm opinion that there arises no dispute before it qua any ambiguity in the chassis number of the subject vehicle. The issue regarding chassis number assigned to vehicle in question is crystal clear, and not complex as alleged by complainant. Once integral part of dispute projected in the complaint (mystery behind alleged chassis number of subject vehicle) traumatizes and answered against complainant-firm, then the ancillary relief claimed in complaint regarding alleged loss in business too does not hold any ground, particularly when the plea regarding alleged loss taken in complaint is vague, evasive and remained unsubstantiated.
9. Consequently, this Commission, as a result of ex-facie analysis of all relevant facets of this case has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that present complaint is devoid of merit; same carries no substance. Complainant is hereby non-suited. Complaint is hereby dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. Copy of this judgment be provided to parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 13th November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
