Date of Filing:13.11.2008<br /> Date of Order:18.03.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2447 OF 2008<br /> <br /> K. Krishnan<br /> Proprietor, M/s. Sea Bird Travels<br /> G-3, Travel Point, No. 30<br /> Sheshadri Road, Ananda Rao Circle<br /> Bangalore 560 009 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> Singh Motors Coach Builders<br /> No. 57/58, Tubinkere<br /> KIADB, Industrial Area<br /> Yelechikanahalli, Kothathi Hobli<br /> Mandya – 571 402<br /> <br /> Represented by<br /> 1. Harbajan Singh, Managing Partner<br /> <br /> 2. Nirmal Singh, Partner<br /> <br /> 3. Harvinder Singh, Marketing Manager Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that complainant is a proprietor of M/s. Sea Bird Travels doing the traveling business. Opposite party engaged in body building work of the bus and other vehicles. The complainant for the purpose of his business had purchased 2 bus chassis from Aravind Motors Pvt. Ltd. from Bangalore on 17.07.2004 and entrusted the same to opposite party on 17.07.2004 for body building work. The complainant has raised loan from ICICI Bank, Bangalore who released amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- by way of 2 pay orders on 15.07.2004 directly to opposite party. Complainant further paid sum of Rs. 2,68,500/- and another amount of Rs. 4, 50,000/- to the opposite party. Thus, complainant paid sum of Rs. 13,48,500/- to the opposite party for body building work. Opposite party has agreed to deliver the vehicle within 45 days. Complainant has filed private complaint before IX ACMM, Bangalore in PCR No. 4374/2006. The Hon’ble Magistrate dismissed the complaint by its order dated 17.07.2008 stating that matter is of civil nature. Complainant sent legal notice calling upon the opposite party to return the chassis and money. Hence, complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to refund Rs. 13,48,500/- with interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed very brief defence version stating that viewed from any angle, the complaint is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the complaint in limine with exemplary costs and direct complainant to pay Rs. 8,17,500/- and requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Complainant has filed Affidavit evidence and written arguments.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> “1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> 2. Whether the complaint is barred by time?<br /> 3. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986?”<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complainant admittedly stated in his complaint that he is a proprietor of M/s. Sea Bird Travels doing traveling business. Further, he has stated in the complaint that he has purchased 2 chassis for the purpose of his business. Therefore, under section 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’. He had purchased the chassis for commercial purpose. He is a business man. It is not the case of the complainant that he has purchased chassis or availed the service of opposite party exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment. Therefore, the present dispute does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. At this point itself the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Secondly, as per the case of the complainant he has entrusted the chassis to the opposite party for body building. The complainant submitted that opposite party has agreed to deliver the vehicles within 45 days from the date of receiving the chassis. Therefore, cause of action arose after 45 days of the delivery for assurance. Admittedly, on 17.07.2004 chassis were entrusted to the opposite party and complaint has been filed on 14.11.2008 i.e. more than two years from the date of cause of action. Under section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within two years from the date of which cause of action has arisen. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant on 14.11.2008 is time barred under section 24(a) of the Consumer Protection Act. On this account also the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The third ground is the complainant has filed complaint before the IX ACMM, Bangalore and the learned Magistrate dismissed complaint by order dated 17.07.2008 stating that matter is of civil nature. After dismissal of the private complaint, complainant has again approached this forum. This kind of litigation or approach is not proper and it should be deprecated. If the complainant has got any grievance against opposite party he should have filed civil suit before the civil court for getting appropriate relief as observed by the learned magistrate while dismissing his complaint. Therefore, on this ground also, the complaint is not maintainable. Taking any view of matter the complaint is devoid of merits. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />