Haryana

StateCommission

A/1177/2016

BABA THAKUR TRADING CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANJU CHADHA

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                        First Appeal No.1177 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:08.12.2016

                                      Date of Decision :13.01.2017

 

M/s Baba Thakur Trading Co. through proprietor Rohtash S/o Kartar Singh resident of village Dubaldhan, Panna Kirman Tehsil Beri, District Jhahhar.

                                                …Appellant

 

 

                                      Versus

 

1.      M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Branch Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh road, Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

 2.     M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 1^st Floor, rohtak Tower, Delhi Bye Pass, Rohtak Tehsil & District Rohtak.

                                          …Respondents

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

 

Present:     Mr. Manoj Chadha, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                       O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that Mahindra Bolero Camper Gold VX 2WD manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. was purchased from Opposite party No.1 (for short ‘OP’)  for Rs.6,42,899/-. At that time it was told that vehicle was manufactured as per standard guidelines laid down by Government. OP No.1 assured to get the vehicle registered. When registration authority was approached for registration of this vehicle  to enable it to ply on the road for commercial purpose it was told that vehicle was not as per rules and regulations issued by the Government and could not be registered. The matter was brought to the notice of OPs, but, nobody listened it. The vehicle was purchased as per assurance given by the OPs, so there was deficiency in service on their part. They be directed to get the vehicle registered and if it was not possible then to take the vehicle back and to refund his amount alognwith interest at the rate of Rs.24% per annum besides compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental harassment, economic loss etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      OPs filed reply, controverting his averments and alleged that the vehicle was sold as per demand of the complainant. Its delivery challan, model number, engine number etc. were clearly mentioned. This fact was communicated to the complainant also who had signed delivery challan. Neither it was their duty to get the vehicle registered nor any such assurance was given. He was never misguided to purchase this vehicle. The dealer was responsible for roadworthiness of the vehicle and not the other things. Objections about concealing facts, accruing cause of action, maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’) were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.10.2016.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      It is urged by learned counsel for appellant that in NCR a vehicle with BS4 engine can be plied whereas, this vehicle was having BS3 type of engine. So it was not registered by the competent authority.  OPs issued certificate Annexure A-5 to the effect that the vehicle was complying the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V Act’) and Rules made thereunder. They did not tell the type of engine at that time and misguided him to purchase this vehicle. So he was entitled for the relief  as prayed for.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of the heading of complaint it is clear that the vehicle in question was purchased by the business concern for commercial purpose. It is specifically alleged in para No.6 of the complaint that registration authority was approached to register the vehicle to ply the same on the road for commercial purpose. When the vehicle is purchased for commercial purpose then the matter cannot be agitated before the District Forum. If any vehicle/machinery is purchase for commercial purposes after the amendment of section 2(1) (d)  of the Act then the purchaser  cannot be considered as a consumer.  This point was dealt with by Hon’ble National Commission in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd.,  and India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers, decided on 07.02.2013 in first appeal No.723 of 2006 and 736 of 2006.  Relevant portion of Para No.9  of the above said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“We note that in his complaint before the State Commission the Respondent-complainant had clearly stated that the vehicle was purchased for the use of its Managing Director.  We agree with appellants’ contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a ‘commercial purpose’ since the Managing director of a private limited company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for ‘commercial purposes’ as a perk of his office.”

          After the opinion of Hon’ble National commission in the aforesaid case laws, it is clear that if anyone has purchased vehicle for commercial purpose such person cannot claim himself to be consumer.  In the present case vehicle was purchased  for commercial purpose and vehicle was to be used for  complainant company.  It is no where alleged by Mr. Kartar Singh that he purchased this vehicle for earning his livelihood. When complainant has failed to prove this fact it cannot claim itself to be consumer.

8.      Further, complainant has also failed to show that OPs ever assured to get the vehicle registered. OP No.1 sold the vehicle as demanded by it. When complainant was going to purchase vehicle it should have verified all the facts. Dealer is only to sell vehicle demanded by any customer and is not responsible for registration of the same. Has there been any deficiency in service in documentation then it could have been different matter. It is nowhere alleged by the complainant that wrong or incomplete documents were issued by the dealer. It is rightly alleged by the OPs that they were responsible for roadworthiness of vehicle and not other things. Certificate Annexure A-5 was issued about manufacturing standard and not for registration, so it could not be alleged that the OPs misguided complainant or there is any fault on their part. Learned District Forum has discussed all the facts from each and every angle. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 13.10.2016. Resultantly, appeal is dismissed in liminie.

January 13^th,                   Urvashi Agnihotri        R.K. Bishnoi

2017                                Member                     Judicial Member

                                       Addl. Bench                Addl. Bench