Haryana

StateCommission

CC/7/2016

VIKAS YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

PASCO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No. 07 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 11.01.2016

Date of Decision: 28.07.2016

 

Mr. Vikas Yadav Proprietor of Shiv Shakti Logistic Services office at VPO Manesar, Gurgaon.

…..Complainant

                                      VERSUS

1. Pasco Motors LLP 40, Mile Stone, NH-8, Narsinghpur,Gurgaon (HR.) 122004.
2. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. Bombay House, 24, Homy Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

…..Opposite parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Vikas Yadav complainant in person.

 

O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                    It is alleged by the complainant that he is proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Logistics Services  and is providing services to local areas i.e. Gurgaon, Manesar, Dharuhera, Bawal etc. and other States like, Delhi, Uttar Pardesh, Rajasthan etc. for delivery of material from their company premises to the destination premises. He is regular customer of opposite party (in short O.P.) No.1 who is agent of O.P.No.2. He purchased 05 commercial vehicles  Make LPT1109/42 Ex Truck Chassis fitted with tilt cab and high deck load body from O.P.No.1 manufactured by O.P.No.2 in the month of October, 2014 for giving services exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. O.P.No.1 delivered the vehicles vide separate invoice Nos. PasMou-R-1415-01312 to PasMou-R-1415-01316 against payment of Rs.11,12,000/- per vehicle (total Rs.Fifty Five Lacs Sixty Thousand)  with specification mentioned as product code 21901542000R-LPT 1109/42 etc. He purchased these vehicles with 100 % financial help from Indusind Bank Limited. To get the vehicles registered within one month he paid required amount for that purpose, but, O.P.No.1 could not get them registered and put off the matter under one pretext or the other. Registration was necessary because he was  supposed to provide logistics services to his customers. The vehicles could not be registered because they failed on the basis of dimension specifications of the vehicle. As per ARIE Rules, dimensions of vehicles in question should be length-breadth-height (L*B*H)= 5460*2167*1800 mm and dimensions of present vehicles  is (L*B*H)= 5790*2286*2184. It shows that vehicles supplied to him were bigger in size. When he asked about this fact from OP it was told that O.P.No.2 was responsible for the dimensions and he was only authorized dealer. Due to non-registration he suffered huge loss and could not pay installments to the  bank, which is around 2.20 Lacs. He is suffering loss of Rs.4500/- per day per vehicle as per Annexure C-5. O.Ps be directed to pay Rs.43,20,000/- on account of loss, Rs.5,00,000/- as of interest on the amount and Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment etc.

2.                Arguments heard. File perused.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the vehicles in-used were purchased for earning livelihood by way of self-employment. As per invoices mentioned above, the vehicles of specific type were sold as mentioned therein. LBH of this model should have been 5460x2167x1800 mm but it was 5790x2286x2184 mm. So, the same were not registered by the registration authority due to which he could not ply these vehicles and suffered huge loss as mentioned above. OPs be directed to pay the compensation as claimed by him.

4.                This argument is devoid of any force because the complainant is not covered by the definition of the Consumer as mentioned in Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( In short “Act”). Firstly, it is a transport company run by the complainant. In invoices as well as Motor Policy Scheme cum Certificate of Insurance, company is shown as ‘Corporate’. These documents clearly show that the vehicles were purchased for a corporate house i.e. a company known as M/s Shiv Shakti Logistics. As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd.,  and India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers, decided on 07.02.2013 in first appeal No.723 of 2006 and 736 of 2006 if vehicle is purchase for company it is for commercial purpose and consumer complaint is not maintainable.  Relevant portion of Para No.9  of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd., case (supra) is reproduced as under:-

“We note that in his complaint before the State Commission the Respondent-complainant had clearly stated that the vehicle was purchased for the use of its Managing Director.  We agree with appellants’ contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a ‘commercial purpose’ since the Managing director of a private limited company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for ‘commercial purposes’ as a perk of his office.”

Hon’ble National Commission has also opined in Maruti Ispat & Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd. I (2016) CPJ 165  that if any machine is purchased by company for commercial purposes the same cannot be considered as consumer.  It is also opined by Hon’ble Goa SCDRC  in Parkash Gawas Vs. Muktar Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. (Apr.) 2016 Vol.II Part 4 -3B  that if a complainant is running a business of giving his trucks on hire, this activity cannot be considered as earning of livelihood by means of self-employment. As per averments of the complainant, it is clear that it had purchased these vehicles for commercial purposes  and not for earning livelihood by self-employment and is not covered by the definition of consumer. When complainant is not consumer, this Commission cannot adjudicate upon the matter because any judgment without jurisdiction is nullity as opined by Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision Petition No.317 of 1994 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Vipan Kumar Kohli decided on 19.01.1995.  As a sequel to my above discussion, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

July 28th  2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench