Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

CC/15/16

M/S SHUBH LABH REAL ESTATE - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NISSAN MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1020 OF 2015

 

                                                                                       Filed on 06.05.2015

                                                                                  Decided on  06.10.2015

 

M/S SHUBH LABH REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD.

THROUGH DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED PERSON

SANJAY KUMATH S/O SHRI UMRAO SINGH KUMATH,

R/O 15/1, SOUTH TUKOGUNJ, GORANI COMPOUND,

INDORE (M.P.)-452 001.                                                                   … COMPLAINANT.

 

Versus

 

1. M/S NISSAN MOTORS INDIA PVT.LTD.

    THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR,

    37/38 A.S.V.RAMMANA TOWERS,

    THIRD FLOOR, OPP.HP PETROL PUMP,

    VENKAT NARAYAN ROAD, T. NAGAR,

    CHENNAI – TAMILNADU 600 017

 

2. M/S HRIDAY AUTO MOBILES PVT.LTD.

    THROUGH DIRECTOR RISHI ANAND,

    2/A/E BRILIANT STAR, SCHEME NO.54

    OPPOSITE HOTEL FORTUNE LANDMARK

    M.R.10 ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)- 452 010                              …OPPOSITE PARTIES.                               

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA    :     PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH                             :       MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                              :      MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ashhar Warsi, learned counsel for the complainant.                                                          

                                                     

O R D E R

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

           

                   Complainant M/S Shubh Labh Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. through Director Sanjay Kumath has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties alleging unfair trade practice.

 

-2-

2.                The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are that complainant after availing finance of Rs.10 lakh from IDBI Bank Ltd. Indore purchased a Nissan Terrano XL Plus DCL BS4 car manufactured by opposite party no.1, from opposite party no.2 on 04.02.2014 after paying a sum of Rs.13,08,970/- including charges for RTO and insurance. The allegation of the complainant is that as per quotation dated 31.01.2014 given by the opposite party the vehicle was shown as make of the year 2014 whereas it was make of the year 2013.  It is also alleged that the opposite parties sold the said vehicle earlier also to someone else and after preparing false documents it was sold to him as a new vehicle.  The complainant therefore filed a complaint claiming an amount of Rs.13,37,981/- with 12% interest including the amount for mental pain and financial loss, expenses towards RTO and insurance and premiums with interest paid to bank. 

3.                Heard learned counsel on admission. 

4.                Learned counsel for complainant placing reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs Daimlerchrysler India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) has submitted that Car purchased for personal use of the Director of the Company does not fall under the commercial purpose and therefore the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

5.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant and on going through the complaint we find that the complainant has claimed a total amount of Rs. 13,37,981/- with 12% interest which does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.  As per provisions of the Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the

-3-

goods or service and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore.  

6.                In view of the above, the complaint so filed be returned to complainant with liberty to file before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction.