ORAL ORDER
Per Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase-Hon’ble President
None present for the complainant. It appears that the complainant company has given authorization in favour of Mr.Umesh Sharma and Mr.Umesh Sharma was present on 18/09/2012 and on 25/10/2012. He filed vakalatnama of one Mr.S.G.Patil-Advocate and, thereafter, it was adjourned for admission. Today none of them are present for hearing on admission of the complaint. Hence, in their absence, we proceed to examine the complaint. The complainant is a registered company and said company has purchased Jaguar-XF car manufactured by opponent no.1 through opponent no.2 for `52,42,934.42ps. It was purchased for the use and operation of its Director with a motive to provide conveyance services to the directors. It appears that it was represented to the complainant that the provision of satellite navigation system will be given. However, said system was not given and, therefore, complaint has been filed and prayer is made for refund of amount and insurance premium of `1,04,985/- and the registration charges of `4,50,334/-. Further, compensation of `10 lakhs has been claimed. Per se, the vehicle has been purchased for commercial purpose. Though it is stated in the complaint that it is for the directors and providing them the conveyance service, however, the directors if use the said vehicle, may use it privately and also for the purpose of the company. Apart from that ultimately whether it is for profit or non profit is not a criteria. Criteria is the use of the vehicle for ‘commercial purpose’ and if the vehicle is used for ‘commercial purpose’, it is further obligatory to show that said commercial activity is for ‘self employment’ and the income from the said activity is principle source of livelihood. These questions would not arise in case of a legal person like the complainant company. Company when purchased the vehicle, it is purchased for the purpose of providing a facility for its directors and the directors in connection with the business of the company and, thus, it is purchased for the purpose of their business vis-à-vis for a commercial purpose and, therefore, complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of definition of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint stands rejected.
Pronounced on 12th December, 2012.
