DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/08/2015
No. DF/ Central/
GATEWAY RAIL FREIGHT LTD.,
Having its Registered office at :
SF – 7, Second Floor, D- 2, ‘Southern Park’
Saket District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi – 110 017
…..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE,
Having its office at :
Laxmi Insurance Building,
2/2A, 3rd Floor, Asaf Ali Road,
Delhi – 02
…..OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint was filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (in short the Act) by Gateway Rail Freight Limited (in short the complainant) pleading therein that :
Complainant Company for its business purposes hires/owns several trailors,
besides other commercial vehicles. It also owned a trailor with the following description :
- Registration No. HR 55F7395
- Chassis No. : CPR153347
- Engine No. : BPH 455264
- Make/Variant/CC/Model : Ashok Leyland / 2007
- Type of Body : Trailor (in short the Vehicle)
The vehicle was comprehensively insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd., (in short the OP) valid for the period from 20/07/2010 to 19/07/2011. Unfortunately on 19/07/2011 the vehicle met with an accident resulting into its total loss for which a claim was raised with OP. However OP vide their letter dated 04/06/2013 repudiated the claim and has failed to indemnify the loss. Hence the complaint for direction to the OP
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,33,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim
- A sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- of account of damages with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of claim
(iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. On receipt of notice of the instant complaint OP appeared and contested the claim vide their written statement.
3. We have perused the case file and heard Shri Atul Sahi Counsel for Complainant and Shri Ashutosh Atri Counsel for OP.
4. In para 3 of the complaint it is mentioned:
‘’That the Complainant Company for its business purposes hires/owns several trailors, besides other commercial vehicles.’’
In para 7 of the complaint it is mentioned :
‘’The vehicles of the Complainant Company are being driven by hired/engaged drivers who are expert and trained drivers for commercial vehicles having a valid commercial vehicle driving license.’’
Since the vehicle in question was purchased admittedly for commercial
Purpose the instant case is squarely covered by judgement of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G, Industrial Institute [1995 (3)
SCC 583] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled as follows:
‘’… On this interpretation of the definition clause, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit activity will not be 'consumers'
entitled to protection under the Act. It seems to us clear that the intention of Parliament as can be gathered from the definition section is to deny the benefits of the Act to persons purchasing goods either for purpose of resale or for the purpose of being used in profit-making activity engaged on a large scale. It would thus follow that cases of purchase of goods for consumption or use in the manufacture of goods or commodities on a large scale with a view to make profit will all fall outside the scope of the definition. It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large- scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is however necessary that there should be a close nexus between the transaction of purchase of goods and the large-scale activity carried on for earning profit. "
5. Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines the term ‘consumer’, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
‘’consumer’’ means any person who –
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
6. Acquisition of the vehicle in question is connected with business activities of the complainant company. In other words the purpose behind acquisition of the vehicle is to promote and augment the business activities of the complainant Company by use of the vehicle in question. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) it is not the value of the goods but the purpose for which the goods are brought or put to use, which is relevant to decide whether the goods were obtained for a commercial purpose or not. If the business activities of a company cannot be conveniently undertaken without
the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by a company, such purchase or hiring/availing as the case may be, would be for a commercial purpose, because the objective behind such purchase of goods or hiring or availing of the services would be to enable the company to earn profits by undertaking and advancing its business activities.
7. Since the vehicle in question was purchased by complainant company for purpose of making profit and the acquisition is related to the business activity of the complainant such acquisition is for commercial purpose. The dominant purpose behind acquisition of the vehicle in question is to advance and sustain business activities of the company.
8. The purpose behind enactment of the Act was to provide a speedy remedy to small consumers and the Act is not intended for the benefit of large business entities. Therefore, if a transaction of purchase of goods or availing of services is aimed at earning profits or advancing the business activities of the purchaser, such a transaction will be out of the purview of the Act.
9. National Commission in Interfreight Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Usha International 1 (1995) CPJ 128 (NC), inter-alia observed that the special remedy before the consumer forums can be invoked only by ordinary consumers, purchasing goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not by business organization buying goods for commercial purposes.
10. Since the complainant is not a consumer, the instant complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this ______ Day of ________ 2018.
