Delhi

StateCommission

CC/240/2015

M/S STAR EYES PUBLIC RELATION PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 01.06.2016

Date of Decision : 09.06.2016

Complaint No. 240/15

 

In the matter of:

1. M/s. Star Eyes Public Relation Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Director,

Shri Amit Abhilash,

19, Shivalik Apartments,

Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura,

•  

 

2. Shri Amit Abhilash, Director of

M/s. Star Eyes Public Relation Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o BG-5/5A, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-110063.                                               …........Complainants

 

VERSUS

1. M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited,

Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Shri Anand G. Mahindra,

Mahindra India and World Headquarters,

Mahindra Towers, G.M. Bhosale Marg,

            Mumbai-400018 (Maharashtra)

 

Also at

 

M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited,

Gateway Building, Appolo Bunder,

Mumbai-400001 (Maharashtra).

 

2. Shri Anand G. Mahindra,

Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M/s. Mahindra And Mahindra Limited,

R/o Gulestan, 65, Nepean Sea Road,

Malabar Hills,

Mumbai, (Maharasthra).

 

3. Synergy Cars,

(A Unit of Koncept Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.)

(Through its Sales/Marketing Manager)

B-2/16, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029.

 

4. M/s. Indraprastha Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its General Manager (Services),

F-6, Udyog Nagar, Peera-Garhi,

Rohtak Road, Industrial Area,

New Delhi-110041.                                                                 ….....Opp. Parties

                                                                

CORAM

 

O. P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta - Member (Judicial)

 

1. The present complaint can be disposed of on a short question that car purchased by a company cannot form subject matter of complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

2. Facts which can be gathered from the complaint are that OP-1 deals in business of automobile manufacturing, OP-2 is its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, OP-3 is authorised dealer of OP-1 and OP-4 is authorised service station of OP-1. Mahindra XUV car bearing no. DL-12CA-5811 was purchased by complainant-1 namely M/s. Star Eyes Public  Relation Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated with Registrar of Companies, Delhi. The car was purchased on 30.04.2014 exclusively for personal use of complainant-2 who is one of its Director.  Till 02.12.2014 complainant-2 had driven the car for more than 7000 Km. within seven months, first service was got done at recommended period of 5000 Km from OP-4.  On 02.12.2014 when complainant-2 started for his office, engine of the vehicle suddenly stopped/jammed in the middle of busy road and all functions of the vehicle also stopped.  The manner in which vehicle abruptly stopped, gave a sudden jerk and shock to the complainant-2 who remained in an unconsciousness state for some time. Complainant-2 was constrained to call upon service number 1800-102-7006 (Mahindra helpline for Road Assistance) as mentioned in the service booklet. After about one hour, a vehicle lifting crane came and after opening the formal job-card took the vehicle to one of the authorised service station/OP-4.  At about 7:00 P.M. on the same day, complainant-2 was informed that they were not able to diagnose the problem. Complainant-2 remained in a state of trauma due to heavy horrifying and frightening incidence and suffered immense agony and torture.

 

3. Had the complainant been driving the vehicle on highway alongwith family members, same could have resulted in unfortunate mishap which would have threatened even the life of the complainant and life of his whole family members.  This is all conjectures.

 

4. OPs have not provided diagnosis except that engine has been changed which clearly shows that there was inherent manufacturing defect in the engine.  Sh. Sanjay Gupta, V.P. Customer Care sent an email dated 04.12.2014 informing that Sh. Rajiv is Dy. G.M. who will connect back with complainant next day by noon but to no use. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 10.12.2014 which was replied by OP-1 stating that engine was changed and replacement of engine could not be treated as defective engine. Hence, this complaint for refund of Rs.13.50 lacs for purchase of vehicle alongwith interest @24% per annum directing OP-1 to pay Rs.10 lacs towards damages/compensation for financial loss, physical harassment, inconvenience, torture, mental agony.

 

5. OP-1 & 2 filed reply stating that the complaint is false, malicious, vexatious and incorrect. Same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, OP-2 does not have any direct relation with complainant. The complainant during first service after using the said vehicle for 5000 Km. did not complain about any problem in the vehicle. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would have come to the knowledge of the complainant within initial 5000 Km. and not after using vehicle for 7000 Km., since the vehicle was comparatively new and OP being customer acentric, decided to replace the engine assembly proactively so that the complainant should not suffer any further problem. Once the vehicle was replaced without levying any cost on the complainant and he was informed about the vehicle being repaired and ready for delivery, he instead of taking the delivery, delivered a legal notice. The complainant ought to have supported his submission with expert opinion to show vehicle had a manufacturing defect.

 

6. OP-3 & 4 filed separate reply. The complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavits. OP-1 & 2 filed evidence by way of affidavits.  

 

7. Complainant filed written arguments. OP-1 & 2 also filed written arguments.

 

8. I have gone through the material on record and heard the oral arguments. The counsel for OP made preliminary submissions that by now the law is well settled that car purchased in the name of a company is outside the scope of Consumer Protection Act. In this regard reliance can be placed on decision of National Commission in Pharas Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. IV (2014) CPJ 525 and decision of National Commission in Shiv Om Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. I (2015) CPJ 422. The counsel for complainant submitted that OPs have not taken any such objection in the written statement. So they cannot be allowed to take up the said issue for the first time in final argument. I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments. The argument is apparently legal and goes to the root of the case.  The same can be taken at any stage even at appellate stage.

 

9. The other argument of the complainant is that person in section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act is wide enough to include and form, HUF, Society, Association of person. He relied upon the decision in Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. s. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1905 in which it was held that legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person like company.

 

10. I have carefully gone through the said judgement and same is in different context. That is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

 

11. In view of the direct decision of the National Commission regarding car purchase in the name of company, there is no option but to dismiss the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.

 

12. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.

 

13. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         ​