Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

73/2012

M/s.Noni Biotech Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.ACT India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Md.Rafi

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 12.03.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 07.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.73/2012

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 07^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

M/s. Noni Biotech Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager – Administration

Mr. M.S. Pandian,

No.12, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Perungudi,

Chennai – 600 096.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                      

 

                                                                                   ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. Tata Motors Limited,

Passenger Car Division,

Rep. by its Manager,

5^th Floor, One Forbes Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,

Mumbai – 400 023.

Regional Office:-

Tata Motors Limited,

ASV Complex,

Venkatanarayan Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

2. M/s. ACT India,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.1, Sambandam Street,

Off. G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

 

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. Md. Rafi & another

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  :  M/s. Shivakumar & another

2^nd opposite party                           :  Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.14,96,000/- towards the cost of the said two Tata Winger Platinum passenger vehicles and take back the said two vehicles from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.  The complainant’s company is carrying out the business of manufacture of Health Care and Wellness products.  The complainant submits that it booked two TATA Winger vehicles for transportation of its corporate office staff and paid a sum of Rs.14,96,000/- only after due discussion and satisfaction.  The complainant submits that the Manager of the complainant insisted for demonstration of the vehicle before delivery.   The complainant submits that on 19.10.2011, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant which appeared to be very old, worn-out and used ones in a different colour.   Thereby, the complainant was displeased and demanded to replace the vehicle.  The complainant sent registered letter to the 2^nd opposite party dated:25.10.2010 and legal notice to the opposite parties 1 & 2 dated:01.11.2011 & 21.12.2011  respectively but there is no response and reply from the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice the 2^nd opposite party has not come forward to appear before this Forum and hence the 2^nd opposite party was set Exparte for non appearance.

  3.    The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.     The 1^st opposite party states that the TATA Motors Ltd is a Company duly incorporated under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars.    The cars and the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party has to pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production of vehicles for due marketing only after the approval by the Automotive Research Association of India.  The authorised dealers are appointed on a ‘principal to principal’ basis for due sales.   The complaint itself is not maintainable because the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.   The complainant has purchased the vehicle for transportation of staffs of his company for carrying out its commercial business.  The complainant also has purchased two vehicles not for personal usage.  As per Section 2 (1)(d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.  The 1^st opposite party states that after due delivery of the vehicle, the complainant forwarded with an allegation that the vehicle delivered was not a new one but as such of demo vehicle and not in a showroom condition but it is very old, worn-out, untidy and used one different in colour, seats are not in such a position etc.  The 1^st opposite party states that without any allegation of manufacturing defect or mechanical defect, the complainant cannot claim either refund of the cost price of the vehicle or replacement.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no documents are marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.14,96,000/- paid towards cost of two  Tata Winger Platinum passenger vehicle as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/-  as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 2^nd opposite party remained Exparte.  Both complainant and the 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  Heard their Counsels also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.  The complainant’s company is carrying out the business of manufacture of Health Care and Wellness products.  The complainant filed the Board of Resolution for filing and the prosecution of the case.  The complainant further contended that it booked two TATA Winger vehicles for transportation of its corporate office staff and paid a sum of Rs.14,96,000/- as per Ex.A2, Proforma Invoice after due discussion and satisfaction is not denied.   Further the complainant contended that the Manager of the complainant insisted for demonstration of the vehicle before delivery.  But the opposite parties registered and delivered the vehicle with the RTO against the will and the performance of the vehicle shown on demonstration was not satisfactory.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 20.10.2011 as per Ex.A3, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant which appeared to be very old, worn-out and used ones in a different colour.   Thereby, the complainant was displeased and demanded to replace the vehicle.  Since the opposite party has turned deaf ears, the complainant was constrained to send registered letter dated:25.10.2010 as per Ex.A4 and legal notices dated:01.11.2011 & 21.12.2011 as per Ex.A6 & Ex.A8 respectively.  Since there is no response and reply from the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to file this case.  But on a careful perusal of the records, the complainant being a Company purchased the vehicle for transportation of staffs for the Company purpose and has not produced any document to prove the said allegation of the nature of the vehicle being very old, worn-out and used one and different in colour.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.14,96,000/- towards the cost of two Tata vehicles and compensation of Rs.4,00,000,/- with cost.

7.     The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party would contend that the TATA Motors Ltd is a Company duly incorporated under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars. The cars and the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party has to pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production of vehicles for due marketing only after the approval by the Automotive Research Association of India.  The authorised dealers are appointed on a ‘principal to principal’ basis for due sales.   The present complaint which is filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law suppressing the material facts.  The complaint itself is not maintainable because the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.  Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle for transportation of staffs of his company for carrying out its commercial business.  The complainant also has purchased two vehicles not for personal usage.  As per Section 2 (1)(d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’.  The vehicles in question has been purchased by the complainant for commercial activities proves that the complainant cannot be a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.     The learned Counsel for the 1^st opposite party cited a decision reported in:

(2009) CPJ 295 (National Commission)

Between

Maruti Udyog Limited

-Versus-

Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr.

Held that

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (b) – Motor Vehicles – Delivery delayed – interest @ 18% p.a. on deposited money along with the compensation awarded – manufacturer and dealer both held liable – hence revision – contention, relationship between the Petitioner and O.P. No.2 was of principal to principal basis – dealer not agent, had not authority to bind company by contract – Order holding petitioner liable to pay interest set-aside – Complainant at liberty to realize awarded amount from authorized dealer”.

9.     Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that after due delivery of the vehicle, the complainant forwarded with an allegation that the vehicle delivered was not a new one but as such of demo vehicle and not in a showroom condition, it is very old, worn-out, untidy and used one different in colour, seats are not in such a position etc.     But the complainant has not produced any document to prove such defective nature of the vehicle was delivered by the opposite parties.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that without any allegation of manufacturing defect or mechanical defect, the complainant cannot claim either refund of the cost price of the vehicle or replacement.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 07^th day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	07.10.2011	Copy of Proforma Invoice given by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A2	08.10.2011	Copy of purchase order by the complainant
Ex.A3	20.10.2011	Copy of Delivery Note from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s Chairman P.I. Peter
Ex.A4	25.10.2011	Copy of registered letter from the complainant to the2nd opposite party
Ex.A5		Copy of Postal Acknowledgement card
Ex.A6	01.11.2011	Copy of legal notice to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant
Ex.A7		Copy of Postal Acknowledgment card
Ex.A8	21.12.2011	Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite parties 1 & 2 by the complainant
Ex.A9		Copy of Postal Acknowledgment card

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT