DATE OF FILING : 18-06-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 19-07-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-07-2014.
Altaf Khan,
son of Maunan Khan of
Village – Parijat, P.O. & P.S. Uluberia,
District – Howrah, -------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Tata Motors Ltd.,
having its regional office commercial vehicle business
unit Rene Tower, 3rd floor,
1842, Rajdanga Main Road,
Kolkata – 700 107.
2. Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,
Argori NH-6, near Jalan Gate No. 3,
P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail,
District – Howrah.
3. The Manager,
UBI, Bagnan Branch,
Village, P.O. & P.S. Bagnan, Howrah,
PIN – 711103. -----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to replace the vehicle by BSIV 712 in place of BSIII 709, to make payment of the EMI by the o.ps. till replacement of the vehicle and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs together with litigation costs.
2. The complainant as per advice of the o.p. no. 2, the authorized dealer of Tata Motor Vehicle, purchased one BSIV 712 model on 21-03-2012 at a total consideration of Rs. 8,70,600/- from the bank loan of UBI, Bagnan Branch, at a monthly EMI to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- and by incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3,80,000/- for making body. Within a short while the vehicle in question developed various trouble while running on the route within the warranty period. Accordingly after necessary checking the o.ps. found mechanical trouble due to placement of BSIII 709 model parts and repaired the same after charging Rs. 8,000/-. The nature of mechanical defects has been enumerated in para 11 of the complaint which could not be repaired by the o.ps. in spite of repeated requests. It is the further case of the complainant that he has been cheated by the company in delivering the model by using the parts of BSIII 709. Hence the case.
4. The o.p. in their written version contended interalia that the complaint is not maintainable as it is hit by Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The complainant is not a consumer as he has been using the vehicle for commercial purpose to generate profit.
5. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of
Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
POINT NO. 1 :
6. It is the persistent claim of the o.ps. that the complainant is not a consumer as
defined U/S 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that he obtained the vehicle for using it for carrying on business of profit.
7. On scrutiny of the complaint we trace clear admission of the complainant that he
carries on business of plying vehicle for commercial purpose and has earned reputation in this field ( Para 2 of the complaint ). In Para 3 the complainant further admitted that for enlargement of his said business, the complainant wanted to purchase one mini bus for plying for commercial purpose in the route sanctioned for route no. 41- Boalia to Madhabpur.
8. In view of such glaring admission we are constrained to hold that the complaint is
not maintainable before this Forum as he is not the consumer as per definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The decision reported in 1995 (II) CPJ I (SC) enumerates that any person purchasing goods or articles for commercial purpose for carrying on business of profit other than exclusively for self-employment, such person is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. In anywhere of the petition of complaint containing 15 paragraphs, the
complainant never disclosed that he purchased the mini bus for maintenance of his livelihood. Naturally, we are of the clear view that the case is not maintainable and required to be dismissed.
POINT NOS. 2 & 3 :
10. In view of the observation as above we are of further views that the discussion on
merit over the mechanical congenital defect are redundant as the complaint itself is not maintainable.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No.198 of 2013 ( HDF 198 of 2013) not being maintainable is dismissed on contest as against the o.ps. but in view of the circumstances without costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
