In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.195/2011

1)                   M/s Garg Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. 

Represented by its Director,

Dinesh Agarwal, 11A/1D, East Topsia Road, Kolkata-46                                ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

7, Dr. Ishaque Road, 3^rd Floor, Old Kyd Street, Kolkata-16, P.S. Park Street.

2)       The Branch Manager,

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

7, Dr. Ishaque Road, 3^rd Floor, Old Kyd Street, Kolkata-16         

3)       Managing Director, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

7, Dr. Ishaque Road, 3^rd Floor, Old Kyd Street,

Kolkata-16  and    2^nd Floor, Sadhana House,

50, PB Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018                                                          ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   14    Dated  26/09/2012.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s Garg Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.  against the o.ps. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and others.  The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a private limited company and booked a vehicle from o.p. no.1 by virtue of their Board Resolution dt.25.2.11 and complainant entered into a car contract with o.p. bearing contract no.1400963 dt.7.12.10 and handed over one demand draft of Rs.22,110/- as down payment to o.p. no.2 but complainant did not get the car from o.p. no.2 as loan amount towards EMI taken by complainant was not duly paid to o.p. no.1 for which the vehicle was handed over to complainant by o.p. no.1 after 37 days, although complainant made payment of Rs.1,64,237/- to o.p. no.1 initially for booking. Hence the case.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it appears from the cause title itself complainant is private limited company and it approached for purchase the vehicle by virtue of their Board Resolution dt.25.2.11 authorizing Dinesh Agarwal to look into the matter and it further appears from para 11 of the petition of complaint that complainant had to suffer huge financial loss due to delay of delivery of the vehicle in question after 37 days.

            In view of the position and taking into consideration of the entire materials on record we are of the view that complainant cannot be construed as a ‘consumer’ within the definition as defined in the C.P. Act, 1986 while in particular the averment of the petition of complaint speaks of that the vehicle was proposed to be purchased for private limited company itself obviously for commercial purpose and if individual wants to purchase vehicle for his personal use Board Resolution is not required at all.  Therefore, the case of the complainant fails and is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the petition of complaint is dismissed on contest without cost. Complainant is at liberty to agitate the issue in question on the self same cause of action before the appropriate Forum.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.