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.898/2006
M/S FAIR FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
UG-3, SOMDUTH CHAMBERS-II,
9 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110066
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S MIRKANA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,
A-19, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:09.05.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
In brief the case of the complainant is that it is a private limited company. OP is a private limited company working in the name and style of A-One Motors and is authorized dealer and is having authorized workshop of Tata Motors. Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle no.DL-3CU-8688. The vehicle of complainant was having some mechanical problem. Complainant approached OP and OP after inspecting the vehicle accepted the same for repair and made an estimate for a sum of Rs.5,200/- towards the repair of the said vehicle to which complaint gave his consent. OP assured complainant that in case the repair costs more then the same would be done with the prior approval and consent of the complainant. Thereafter OP informed complainant that his vehicle was ready for delivery. When complainant visited the workshop of OP to take the delivery of the said vehicle, OP informed complainant that they have raised a bill for an amount of Rs.73,859/-. Complainant was shocked to receive such a heavy bill as the same was raised by OP without the consent and approval of complainant and raised an objection with the OP. OP threatened that in case complainant failed to settle the bill amount, OP will not deliver the said vehicle. Complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.62,000/- and OP released the vehicle after receiving a sum of Rs.62,000/-. It is stated that such conduct of OP clearly reflects deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is stated that complainant is entitled to refund the money paid by him over and above Rs.5,200/- i.e. Rs.56,800/-. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.56,800/- plus Rs.75,000/- for compensation, Rs.40,000/- for conveyance expenses and Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP in the reply took the plea that complainant is a company and the said vehicle is in the name of company, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Bank.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
There is no doubt that vehicle was purchased by a company which is engaged in commercial activities. 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.”
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
