DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of February, 2024.

                           Filed on: 29/11/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

C.C No. 906/2023

COMPLAINANT

Eloit Innovation Pvt. Ltd., Supplyco Building, 1^st Floor, Thapasya, BSNL Exchange Road, Kanjirappally, Kottayam, Pin 686507. Rep. by Managing Director Thomson Philip.

(Rep. by Adv. Mathew Abraham, M&A Associates, 2^nd Floor, Theakkumkattil Building, Near to Good Shepherd Complex, Good Shepherd Road, Kottayam 686001.)

VS

Opposite Party

1. Tata Motors, Passenger Vehicle Ltd., rep. by its Senior Manager-Regional Customer Care, PVBU, South4, 4^th Floor, Liv N Tower, Opp. Gold Souk, Vyttila, Kochi 682019.
2. Malayalam Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its General manager, CC No. 52/3171, 3172, Sharon Tower, Opp. Salafi Mazjid, Vyttila, Kochi 682019.

F  I  N  A  L    O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

We heard the counsel representing the complainant. We have also perused the contents of the complaint.

                        The complainant purchased a car from the Muvattupuzha showroom of the Second opposite party for a sum of Rs. 15,65,490/-, as per Purchase Invoice No. MVPL-23-24-0684 dated 6th October 2023. The car was claimed to be purchased for business purposes.

The crux of the matter lies in the determination of the complainant's status as a consumer under Sec. 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The definition of 'consumer' excludes individuals who obtain goods for 'commercial purposes.'

• As per Sec. 2(7)(i) of the Act, a consumer is defined as any person who buys goods for consideration. However, it explicitly excludes individuals who purchase goods for commercial purposes.
• The complainant, being represented by its Managing Director and admitting the fact that the purchase of the car was for business purposes, falls outside the ambit of a 'consumer.' The purchase for a large profit-making venture cannot be construed as self-employment, thus differing from personal, family, or household purposes.

In a similar precedent, the Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of M/s. Greenfield Dairy Meat & Milk Products v. Mr. Muthuramalingam (O.P. No. 458 of 1992, Decided on 30.6.1993, III (1993) CPJ 1425) established that purchases made for commercial purposes fall outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.

The contention of the complainant being a consumer under Sec. 2(7) (i) is unfounded due to the explicit commercial nature of the purchase. The Act does not extend its protection to commercial purchases, thereby excluding this transaction from its purview.

Given the analysis and legal precedents, it is evident that the complainant does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act for this transaction. The purchase being for a commercial purpose excludes it from the jurisdiction of this commission.

Order:

In light of the aforementioned reasons, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over this matter as since complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 due to the commercial nature of the purchase. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of February, 2024

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 906/2023

Order Date: 29/02/2024