CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC/145/2016

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Sh. Joginder Pal

S/o Sh. Munshi Lal

R/o 1310/12, Near New Holi Chowk,

Govind Puri, New Delhi-110019.                                             …..COMPLAINANT  

 VERSUS

Amlan Patnaik

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

Mumbai

Sales Officer,

Tata Motor Finance Co. Ltd.

Tiwari House, Rajendra Place, Delhi.                                  …..OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum  : Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                 Mr. R.C. Meena, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1. Instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Joginder Pal (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended inter-alia pleading therein that complainant entered into an agreement dated 22.02.2013 with M/s Tata Motors Finance Limited (in short OP) for finance of vehicle no. DL-01LS-4139.  He made cash payment of Rs. 82,000/-.  The vehicle was insured with General Insurance Company, Delhi Branch vide policy dated 28.02.2013.  OP charged Rs. 1,17,037/- which is unreasonable.  In fact, Rs.14,929.40/- is due from OP to the complainant.  One person namely Puneet Kashap who claimed to be field executive of OP had taken Rs. 30,000/- from the residence of the complainant by cheating and defrauding him.  The instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant Rs.14,929.40/-.
2. OP appeared and contested the claim vide its claim.  Parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.  We have heard Sh. Shankarlal, counsel for complainant and Sh. Ratan Deo Singh, counsel for OP.
3. During the course of arguments, counsel for OP submitted that the complainant himself pleaded that the vehicle was a “commercial loading vehicle” therefore the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. In Para 1 of the complaint it is mentioned that the vehicle in question was a “commercial loading vehicle”.  In the prayer clause it is reiterated that the complainant purchased a commercial vehicle.  In his affidavit sworn on 15.10.2016, complainant again reiterated that four wheeler commercial vehicle was got financed on 12.03.2013.
5. In Laxmi Engineering Works Vs PSG Industrial Instituted 1995 (3) SCC 583 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that purchase of vehicle for commercial purpose would exclude the claimant from the definition of customer. Since the complainant did not use the vehicle in question exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and is accordingly not entitled to file a complaint under the Act.
6. In Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. vs Daimler Chrysler India Private Ltd & Ors CC No. 51/2016 National Commission vide its order dated 08.07.2016  while relying on the judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works (supra) observed that if vehicle is purchased  and used for commercial purpose  the case is not covered under section 2 (1) (d) of the Act.  Complainant has nowhere stated that the vehicle was used for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment.  Accordingly the complaint is disposed of being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced this            Day of                       2019.