Date of Filing: 17.10.2008<br /> Date of Order: 21.01.2011<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2011<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2244 OF 2008<br /> <br /> 1. Harinath K.P.<br /> S/o. Parthasarathy<br /> <br /> 2. K.P. Vishwanath<br /> S/o. Parthasarathy<br /> The Business Place of the <br /> complainants is No. 10/1<br /> 5th Cross, Hotel Santosh Building<br /> Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.<br /> No. 87, Bull Temple Road<br /> Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004<br /> Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Sundaram Motors<br /> 15th Miles, Tumkur Road<br /> Bangalore<br /> Rep. by its Asst. General Manager Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> The complainants have filed complaint seeking replacement of three tippers and for compensation for financial loss. The complainants submitted that they are the operators and fleet owners of vehicles. They are operating more than 20 lorries through out Southern India holding national permit for the same. The complainants have submitted in their complaint that they are doing transport business for more than two decades. As per the case of complainants purchased three tippers from the opposite parties and they started giving problem. There was problem of gear box, clutch and also engine. The vehicles were sent to opposite party for service. On account of manufacturing defects in the vehicle the complainant suffered. Therefore, the complainants have prayed for replacement of three tippers.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed defence version. The main defence taken by them is complainants are not consumers as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The transaction admittedly is of commercial in nature and for commercial purpose. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Apart from this legal defence opposite parties have taken defence on the merits of the case also.<br /> 3. When the matter was under hearing there was a move for settlement of the matter amicably between parties. In view of the above development the matter was set for reporting settlement and compromise. Both parties took several dates to report the settlement. Ultimately parties failed to report settlement or compromise and ultimately both the learned advocate for the parties left the matter to be decided by the forum. During the course of argument the learned advocate for the opposite parties submitted that complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the ground that complainants cannot be considered as ‘Consumers’ under the definition of ‘Consumer’ because admittedly, the complainants are owners of more than 20 lorries and they are operating the said lorries through out South India and they are carrying on transport business for more than two decades. Admittedly, the complainants have not made out case that they are carrying transport business exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment. Therefore, there is considerable force and merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. On this legal point itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted during the course of argument that opposite party is ready to do free service of three tippers including engine, gear box etc. Even the opposite party is ready to put spare parts if necessary for the smooth running of the vehicles. The opposite parties are giving this concession to the complainants to maintain good relationship since, the complainants are their old customers and they have purchased several vehicles from the opposite parties. So under these circumstances in order to maintain the good customer relationship Ashok Leyland Co. Ltd. has come forward to see that three tippers in which the complainants have got problem will be looked into and the opposite parties are offering their free service to the engine and see that the complainants are not faced any problem in running the three tippers. This concession and gesture shown by the opposite party No. 1 company shall have to be appreciated. In view of the submissions made during the course of hearing and after considering facts and circumstances of the case I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to give free service to the three tippers including engine and gear box. The opposite party No. 1 shall also replace parts of the engine if necessary free of cost and see that three vehicles are run smoothly without any trouble or problem. The complainant is also at liberty to get checked three vehicles through Automobile Engineer / mechanic after the free service rendered by the opposite party No. 1 company. With this direction the complaint is disposed of.<br /> 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2011. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />