DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 81 of 2010 Date of Institution: 01.02.2010 Date of Decision: 31.07.2015
Surjeet Yadav s/o Sh. Tej Ram, R/o Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Ranil International, Sector 17-18, Dividing Road, Sheetla Lane, Near PASCO body Workshop, Gurgaon through its authorized person (Authorized dealer of Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd).
- Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab-146022 through its Managing Director, authorized person.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Mohan Singh, Adv for the complainant.
Sh.C.K.Sharma, Adv for the OP-1
Sh. R.N.Yadav, Adv for OP-2
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a car Rhino RX bearing Regd.No.HR-55-HT-8034 from OP-1 vide Invoice No.001 dated 17.10.2008 and the same was delivered by the dealer to complainant on 17.10.2008. However, OP-2 is the manufacturer of the above said car. However, the said vehicle was not working properly and he reported the matter to OP-1 but the defects could not be rectified and the vehicle was creating problem on account of suspension in engine etc. In this regard the complainant made several complaints but the work was not done satisfactory. It is further alleged that the complainant was using the said car as taxi in some call centre and on account of the defect in the said car the complainant had to hire taxi/private car for using as a taxi. The complainant issued a legal notice upon the opposite parties but of no use. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective car or to refund its price with interest. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their written reply have alleged that the complainant was not a consumer as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. It is alleged that complainant used to bring the vehicle for its periodical inspection/free services and on all the occasions the needful was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant has duly acknowledged the facts through various letter of satisfaction. The complainant had never complained about any such defects. However, there could be some wear and tear in vehicle due to poor road conditions prevailing in the area. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on file and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has purchased a car Rhino RX from OP-1 on 17.10.2008 manufactured by OP-2. However, the said vehicle was not working properly and he reported the matter to OP-1 but the defect could not be removed and the said vehicle was creating problem on account of suspension in the engine and the complainant made several complaints but the work was not done to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant was using the said taxi in some call centre and on account of defect in the said car the complainant had to hire taxi/private car for use as a taxi. To substantiate his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Koyenco Feeds Pvt. Ltd Vs Reed Medway Packaging Company of India Pvt. Ltd & Anr III(1997) CPJ 34, The Secretary, Consumer Guidance & Research Society of India Vs M/s BPL India Ltd I(1992) CPJ 140 (NC), Kurji Holy Family Hospital Vs Boehringer Mannheim India Ltd & Ors III(2007) CPJ 371 (NC) and Hindustan Power Plus Limited Vs Santosh Drillers & Ors IV(2007) CPJ 161 (NC).
5 However, as per the contention of the opposite party there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and whatever was the problem the same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has also issued satisfaction note regarding satisfaction of said taxi, photocopies of which have been placed on file and the said vehicle had run several kilometers as a taxi.
The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance. Both the opposite parties have taken a stand that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as he has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. In support of his contention learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on Birla Technologies Ltd Vs Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd (2011) 1 SCC 525, Economic Transport Organization Vs Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd and ano (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 114 and Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583.
He has further placed reliance on the latest law held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case Jagrut Nagrik & an Vs Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd III(2015) CPJ 1 (NC)
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence the sole question for determination is as to whether the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The definition of consumer is defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under :-
(d) “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 for 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 re-sale 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 whom (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 first mentioned person;
Explanation : For the purples of sub clause(i) Commercial purpose, does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
It is admitted case of the complainant that he has purchased a car Rhino RX bearing Regd.No.HR-55-HT-8034 from opposite party no.1 which was manufactured by OP-2 for the purpose of running taxi. There is no mention in the complaint that the complainant has purchased the above said car for the purpose of earning his livelihood so as to cover in the Explanation attached to section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. However, the authorities relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7 Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal precedents, it has also to be held that the vehicle was purchased for taxi purposes i.e. commercial purpose and thus the complainant was not a “Consumer” and the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable and is dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
31.07.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach)
Member
