Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/625/2020

M/s Relay Strategy Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shaveta Garwa

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	625 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	19.11.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	06.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Relay Strategy Pvt. Ltd., 782/20, 1^st Floor, Khalsa Market, Govindpura, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory etc.

            …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Vehicle Business Unit, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Rod, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai 400093

2]  RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd, Passenger Vehicle Dealer, Plot No.5, Industrial Area,  Phase-I, Chandigarh

3]  Mr.Pankaj Singh, Regional Customer Care Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Vehicle Business Unit, Plot No.70, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                MEMBER

                               

Argued by    : Sh.Sarabjeet Singh, Authorized Representative of      complainant.

Sh.Shivam Grover, Counsel of OPs No.1 & 3

Sh.Sandeep jasuja, Counsel of OP NO.2.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

             The complainant filed present complaint pleading that the complainant is the Managing Director of M/s Relay Strategy Pvt. Ltd. The complainant company purchased one Tata Tigor XM Electric Car from OP NO.2, manufactured by OP NO.1, on 1.8.2019 by paying an amount of Rs.11,81,283.88/- for his personal use, for his father’s use, a Senior Citizen as well as day-to-day activities.  It is stated that the said vehicle started giving problem right from the beginning.  In the first month of purchase, there was issue of Air Conditioner in the vehicle, which was checked by OP No.2 on 27.8.2019.  It is submitted that on 2.11.2019 the first service of car was conducted and just after that there was steering issue, which was reported to OP No.2 on 16.11.2019 whereupon both steering inner ball joints of the car were replaced.  On second service of the car on 11.12.2019, the Stabilizer Link with Anti Roll Bar Link Assy front was replaced; after schedule service, the complainant reported a complaint about under carriage e noise, whereupon the OPs removed and installed shock absorbers on front right.  It is submitted that at the time of sale, it was told that the car will run for 130 kilometer in full charge but it ran only 98 K.M. and then software upgrade was done after so many follow-ups and after that the car is running only upto 116 K.M. in full charge. 

        It is pleaded that on 29.6.2020, the complainant informed the OPs about car breakdown, the service station came to the location and took the car for fixing defect. The car was returned on 3.7.2020 after battery check-up and EV Fitment of new RCD Cable check-ups but on using the vehicle, the problem was still persisting, so the vehicle was taken to Service Station again and returned on 4.8.2020.  However, the said complaint still persisted, so the complainant had to visited the OPs for fixing all issues on 1.9.2020.  It is also pleaded that on 9.9.2020, when the complainant’s father was driving the vehicle, it stopped in middle of the road, so he could not reach to the destination on time and faced loss of business as well.  It is stated that the vehicle sold to the complainant by OPs was incompetent to be driven on road in all respects.  It is also stated that the complainant has lost faith in this car as it starts sometime and it doesn’t start some times and the OPs engineers are also confused about where the problem is, the charger of the car was not ok so OPs provided complainant a standby charger. It is further stated that even the batteries have been replaced once due to being faulty (Ann.C-9 colly.).  A legal notice dated 11.9.2020 was also sent to the OPs in this regard, but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.    

 

2]      The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act, as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is a Commercial Vehicle purchased by the complainant company in the name of Company and out of the fund of the company, thus the transaction regarding purchase of the vehicle being commercial in nature does not fall under The Consumer Protection Act. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix, it is stated that the vehicle in question purchased on 1.8.2019, had already covered distance of 19,672 Kilometers as on 4.2.2021, which proves that the vehicle does not suffer from any manufacturing defect or inherent defect. It is submitted that the vehicle manufactured by Ops have been manufactured in the State of Art Plant at Pune. It is submitted that the alleged repairs as brought out in the complaint are minor in nature and are running repairs which were duly carried out to the best satisfaction of the complainant. It is also submitted that on 27.8.2019, the complainant brought the vehicle for first free mandatory service and at that time, the complainant reported the complaint of A.C. airflow less which was duly carried out by OP No.2 free of cost. It is pleaded that the complainant visited the workshop of OP No.2 on 16.11.2019, when the vehicle had covered 5443 Kms with the problem of steering noise, which was set right by simply tightened the link rod nut bolt.  It is also pleaded that on 11.12.2019 the complainant brought the vehicle for scheduled service and general check, when it had covered 6331 kms. and no other problem was reported on said date.  It is further pleaded that on 24.12.2019 the complainant brought the vehicle for under carriage noise, when it had covered 7073 Kms. and no other problem was reported on said date and after checking the vehicle, stabilizer link was replaced with other minor repairs to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It is submitted that the vehicle never stopped midway on 9.9.2020 as alleged.  It is denied that the vehicle is incompetent to be driven on road in all respect.  It is stated that the vehicle had already covered 19672 Kms. as on 4.2.2021.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        The OP No.3-RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd. has also filed reply stating that the complainant is a company, which cannot be called an individual by any means.  It is also stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle in question was purchased by a company for using it for the purpose of its business i.e. for commercial activity and as such the complainant being a company is not consumer under the definition of consumer.  On merit, while admitting the factual matrix of the case about sale, service and repair of the vehicle, it is stated that from the job carried out by workshop, it is clear that complainant never pointed out any inherent manufacturing defect and that the defects which were pointed out were the result of wear & tear of the vehicle (Ann.R-2/2).  It is submitted that the vehicle in question did not give any major problem and that most of the visits of the vehicle were for scheduled service or for minor defects which occur due to running wear & tear of the vehicle and that once mended did not occur again.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations,     

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OP made in its reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]      We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

 

6]      From the record, it is established that Complainant Company – M/s Relay Strategy Pvt. Ltd., a commercial entity, has purchased the vehicle in question from OP Party – M/s RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Tata Motors Limited. for ‘commercial use/purposes’. 

   

7]      Section 2(7) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, excludes a person from the definition of ‘consumer’ who buys goods for commercial purpose or resale or avails services for any commercial purpose. The said section is reproduced as under:-

        Section 2(7) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019:-

"consumer" means any person who—

1. 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 of 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 resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any service 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 service other than the person who 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 the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment; (b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;’

 

8]      Even the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in casee of Pharso Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Motors Ltd., Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2014, decided on 1.9.2014 , has been held that:-

“Car in question not purchased exclusively for the livelihood of the Director or for his personal use – He has to use the car only for commercial purposes – In case the companies are allowed to save the court fees, the very purpose of ordinary consumer or as defined by the Act shall stands defeated – As such, the present complaint is not maintainable and is  dismissed ……”

 

        Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances & law, the complainant company does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings and settled position of law, the present complaint being not maintainable is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The complainant company shall, be at liberty, to approach an appropriate Authority/Court in the matter and the time spent herein would stand commuted/condoned for the purpose of limitation.

10]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th April, 2023                                                                          

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER