BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 650/2005 against C.D. 602/2001,Hyderabad  

Between:

1. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Irrungattukottai, NH-4

Sriperumbudur Taluq

Kancheepuram Dist.

Tamil Nadu-602 105

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

A-30, Mohan Co-operative

Industrial Area, Phase-I

Mathura Road,

New Delhi-110 044.                                                          1. M/s. Vet Star Agros

Plot No. 227, 228 & 229

Behind Phase-II, IDA Jeedimetla

Near Subash Nagar

Hyderabad-500 055.                                  Complainant

2. Sri Jayalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Naspar House, Himayatnagar

Hyderabad-500 029.                                                                                               

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Respondent:

QUORUM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD

ORAL ORDER:

***

This is an appeal preferred by the manufacturer against the order of the Dist. Forum in directing the appellant to replace the car with a new one besides costs.

The case of the complainant in brief is that       ndrd         Therefore, it filed the complaint for a direction to take back the car and refund the amount with interest @ 24% p.a., besides compensation of    

The dealer                       

The manufacturer            

The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence of   

The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the car was defective in the sense that it was giving jerks   

Aggrieved by the said decision, the manufacturer preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective.    consumer forum.      at free of cost. 

The points that arise for consideration are :

 1) 

 2)  

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a private limited company purchased the car for its business activity viz., for the use of company’s executives.      

The vehicle which was purchased by the complainant was delivered on 9.8.2000 vide Ex. B1.       

On 24.5.2001     11.6.2001 for third free service,          

The             

In the appeal it was contended that during the pendency of the appeal on 14.10.2005 and        

At the outset, we may state that the complainant could      

Admittedly the complainant sought the prayer  When the complainant had asserted that there was manufacturing defect          

In     and that it will be very hard on the manufacturer to replace the vehicle   

Repeatedly    then replacement cannot be ordered.       

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a private limited company       

In a somewhat similar case    

We may also add herein     

In fact, even when a partnership firm purchased the vehicle for its business activity, it was held that it was not a consumer

We 

·       Chandrabhan Medical Centre Vs. Toshniwal Bros Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. III (2004) CPJ 238

·       Central Automobiles & Ors. Vs. Simplex Engineering & Foundry 

Works Ltd., 2004 (2) CPR 397.

·       Gagan Chowdhary 

I (2004) CPJ 158.

·       Shivalik Agro Chemicals 

I (2004) CPJ 364.

·       Fineskin Leathers & Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 

·       Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Another

AIR 2006 SC 1586.

·       M.R.F. Ltd., Vs. Jiwan Dass & Co. 

At the cost of repetition, we may state the car was purchased     

Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the appeal           

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to clutch the jurisdiction of the   Consumer Protection Act. 

In the result the appeal is allowed.