Date of Filing : 23.06.2012
Date of Order : 23.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 23rd JUNE 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 75 / 2012
M/s. Sagar Bajaj Automobiles,
Behind Sharada Talkies, M.B. Road,
Kolar – 563 01.
Rep. by its Proprietor:
Sri. Ahmed N. Imtiyaz, S/o. S. Nazeer Ahmed
(By Sri. A.V. Anand, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
Akurdi,
Pune – 411 035.
Rep. by its Managing Director
2. Sri. K. Srinivas,
President, M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi,
Pune – 411 035.
3. Sri. R.P. Jacob,
D.G.M., Network Development,
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi,
Pune – 411 035.
4. Sri. Chandrashekar,
General Manager (South India),
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi,
Pune – 411 035.
5. Sri. Karunakaran,
Zonal Manager (Karnataka),
M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd.,
No. 74, 15th Cross, Sarakki,
Indl. Layout, J.P. Nagar III Phase,
Bangalore – 560 078.
6. M/s. Kamakshi Bajaj,
Bangalore-Chennai NH-4 Main Road,
Hoskote Town, Hoskote,
Rep. by its Prop: Sri. Pradeepkumar ….. Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
Complainant has made this Complaint seeking direction to the Ops “not to supply two wheeler vehicles of the first respondent company to 6th respondent at Kolar and direct the respondents 1 to 5 to supply vehicles as per dealership renewal letter dated 21.02.2012 to this complainant and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to pay Rs.9.50 Lakhs per month to this Complainant from February 2012 till now and also grant such other reliefs or reliefs granted to this Complainant under the circumstances of this case”, making certain allegations.
2. Complainant has also made an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC which states thus:
That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to grant an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the Respondents 1 to 5 not to give dealership to deal with two wheeler vehicles and spare parts by the 6th respondent till final disposal of this case and also grant such other relief or reliefs, which this Hon’ble court deems fit to be granted to this complainant under the circumstances of this case by allowing this application in the interest o justice and equity.”
3. Heard the arguments.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint ?
(B) Whether this is consumer dispute ?
(C) What order ?
5. Our findings on the above points are:
(A) Negative
(B) Negative
(C) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. The prayer in the Complaint reads thus:
“not to give dealership to 6th respondent to deal with first respondent company two wheelers and spare parts. The petition is valued for Rs.9-50 lakhs as damages per month to this complainant from the month February 2012. This Court be pleased to direct the respondent not to supply two wheeler vehicles of the first respondent company to 6th respondent at Kolar and direct the respondents 1 to 5 to supply vehicles as per dealership renewal letter dated 21.02.2012 to this complainant and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to pay Rs.9.50 Lakhs per month to this Complainant from February 2012 till now and also grant such other reliefs or reliefs granted to this Complainant under the circumstances of this case”,
That means Complainant wants OP1 to supply 2 Wheelers to him only directing the Ops 1 to 5 not to supply the vehicles to OP6 and directing Ops to pay Rs.9.50 Lakhs per month from February 2012 till now.
7. Section 11(1) of the C.P. Act reads thus:
“Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”
That means this District Forum will have jurisdiction if compensation and the value of the goods & services claimed does not exceed Rs.20.00 Lakhs. If it exceeds Rs.20.00 Lakhs, then jurisdiction of this Forum will not be there.
8. In this case, the first portion of the prayer is Ops shall deliver about 100 two wheelers to the Complainant. Complainant has not stated what is its value. Complainant wants Ops 1 to 5 shall not deliver any two wheelers to OP6. These two are independent prayers. Each has to be considered on its own. Complainant wants Rs.9.50 Lakhs per month from February 2012 until now. This Complaint is filed today. That means From February 2012 to May 2012 and 3/4th of the month of June, it comes to Rs.45.12 Lakhs. To this amount, we have to add value of the prayer of the direction to the OP to supply two wheelers to the Complainant and the prayer regarding not to deliver the vehicles to the OP6. Be that as it may be. In any event, relief claimed is more than Rs.20.00 Lakhs. Hence, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.
9. Further, prayer in the Complaint is stated supra. These are mandatory injunctions which this Forum has no jurisdiction to grant. This is prerogative of the Civil Court and the Civil Court only or such prayer if the Complainant is entitled to, Complainant can move Hon’ble High Court seeking certain Writ or directions for which this Order will not come in the way.
10. In any event, the entire Complaint revolves round on the breach of the contract, that cannot be entertained by the District Forum. Complainant is at liberty to move Civil Court seeking appropriate relief.
11. The entire grievance of the Complainant is that he is the dealer of Ops 1 to 5 and the dealership is upto 2013 and in the meanwhile OP6 has influenced and obtained dealership and Ops 1 to 5 cancelled his dealership which is illegal and he has invested Crores of rupees on the business. This has to be seen in the Civil Court and not before this Forum.
12. If the Complainant is advised, he is at liberty to approach Civil Court or any other Court seeking appropriate relief for which this Order will not come in the way.
13. Further, in a case between Techno Mukund Constructions V/s. Mercedes Benz India Limited & Another reported in 2011 CTJ 387 (CP) (NCDRC) has ruled thus:
“The intention of Parliament in excluding persons purchasing goods for commercial purpose from the definition of the expression ‘Consumer’ is to impose a restriction that the special remedy before the Consumer Forums can be invoked only by ordinary consumers buying goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not business organizations buying goods for commercial purpose”.
This in all force applies to the facts and circumstances o this case. That means Consumer Protection Act applies only to an ordinary consumer who purchases goods or avails services for his personal consumption and not to a commercial transaction. Here Complainant was a dealer of the Ops and regarding dealership this dispute is there. Hence, Complainant is not a consumer under the Act.
14. Regulation 26(1) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005 prohibits applying the provision of Civil Procedure Code by the Complainant under C.P. Act. Complainant has made an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC which is impermissible.
15. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
3. Return extra sets of the Complaint with all the original documents if any to the Complainant.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of June 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
