CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.571/2005
M/S M.P.M. STEELS,
THROUGH ITS PARNER
1/6-B, ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S TELCO
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR
24, HOMI MODY STREET, FORT,
MUMBAI
- A-ONE MOTORS/MIRKANA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,
A-19, MCIE, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110044
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:06.05.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
In brief the case of the case of the complainant is that it is a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s M.P.M. Steels specialist in stainless steel pipes and pipes fitting, industrial walves and stockist in sheets, plates, rodes/wires etc. Complainant purchased Telco Indica Diesel DLX V2 Bharat Stage II Diesel driven fuel efficient vehicle Saphire Gold Car for Rs.4,21,424/- vide invoice No.13041 dated 15.4.02 through OP-2, an authorized dealer of OP-1. Complainant found to its dismay that the car was not performing to its optimum. This fact was brought to the notice of OP-1 and the car was taken to the workshop of OP-2 number of times. However the defects were not rectified. Complainant has prayed that OP-1 be directed to replace the car and in case OP does not replace the car, then OP-1 be directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,21,424/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs for compensation and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP-1 took the preliminary objection that complainant being partnership firm is not a consumer within the meaning of the term ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant has purchased the vehicle in question only for commercial purposes as is evident form the Registration Certificate of the vehicle that complainant purchased the vehicle in the name of the firm. The vehicle in question has been purchased out of the funds of the said company, the vehicle is a commercial usage vehicle, with the result, that the complainant cannot claim the status of a consumer the under the Act.
Similarly OP-2 took the objection that complainant is not a consumer.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The contention of Ld. Counsel for OP-1 is that section 2(1)(m) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that “person” includes a firm whether registered or not. It is submitted by him that partnership is also a person hence is a consumer.
We are not convinced with the contention of Ld. Counsel for complainant. There is no doubt that partnership is also a person but the fact is that the car was purchased by a firm which is engaged in commercial purposes. Section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which defines ‘consumer’ as under:-
“(d) ‘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 party 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; or resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
[Explanation – 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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.]”
It is useful to refer to case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant Vs G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents - wherein para -9, Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-
“Para-9 - We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record. 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. Counsel for the Respondent-Complainant has sought to challenge this contention by pointing out that since the present case pertains to 1999 and the amendment referred to was made only in 2002, it was not applicable in the instant case. We are unable to agree with this contention as well because the 2002 Amendment to the Act pertains to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act relating to hiring or availing of services for a consideration and not to section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act relating inter alia to purchase of goods has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as far back as in 1995 in its judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works V. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II(1995) CPJ 1(SC)=1995(3)SCC583, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled as follows:-
….. On this interpretation of the definition clause, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit-making activity will not be ‘consumers’ entitled to protection under the Act. It seems to us clear that the intention of Parliament as can be gathered from the definition section is to deny the benefits of the Act to persons purchasing goods either for purpose of resale or for the purpose of being used in profit-making activity engaged on a large scale. It would thus follow that cases of purchase of goods for consumption or use in the manufacture of goods or commodities on a large scale with a view to make profit will all fall outside the scope of the definition. It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the transaction of purchase of goods and the large-scale activity carried on for earning profit.”
It is nowhere averred in the entire complaint that vehicle in question was purchased by the firm to earn livelihood.
The complaint is not maintainable hence the same is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
