West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/141/2017

Smt. Bharati Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authority of AR Automiles - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

  Sibasis Sarkar, President,

                                                                                                                 and

                                                                                              Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.141/2017.

 

Smt. Bharati Pal, W/o-Sujoy Pal,

at Vill.-Gurtala, P.O.-Khakurda &  P.S.-Belda,

                                                                                     Dist-Paschim Medinipur.                                                                                                                …………..Complainant.

                                                                                                           -Vs-                                                                                                                              

The Authority of AR Automobiles a Dealer of John Decree,

Tractor, Spare parts & Accessories,

                                                    at Pakhi Bagan, Abash, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali,                                                                                                               Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.

                                                     ………………Opposite Party

                                                         

                                                      

                                                                                  Date of filling : 30/08/2017                                                                                                                             

                                                                                     Decided on   : 04/10/2018

     

                                                                                        Judgement/Final Order

 

 

          Sibasis Sarkar, President :–The present petition of complaint U/S-12 of C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Smt. Bharati Pal wherein she has stated that she purchased one tractor on taking loan from the O.P. The O.P.delivered the tractor to her. The O.P.

                                                                                                          Contd……..……P/2.

 

( 2 )

also agreed to make arrangement for registration and for insurance of the vehicle. The O.P. also assured that all the original documents. i.e. blue book, insurance policy certificate, etc. will be delivered to the  complainant only after full payment of the loan amount to the financer.  The complainant has repaid the loan to the financer in full and also received dues clearance certificate from the financer. But the O.P. has refused to hand over the original documents relating to the vehicle to the complainant. Hence the  present case.

                   The O.P. is contesting the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations mentioned in the petition of complaint,  contending interalia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. There is no cause of action for  the present case. The specific case of the O.P. is that the original documents relating to the vehicle in question have been handed over to the complainant.  Those are not lying in the custody of the O.P. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                  Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties the following points have been framed :-

Points for considerations

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
4. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled ?

 

Decision with reasons :

Point No.1 :

 The Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. pointed out that the complainant purchased one tractor for commercial use. As such the complainant can not be  treated as a consumer. So the present case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant raised objection.

It has been clearly mentioned in the definition of consumer  in section 2(I)(d) of C.P. Act 1986 that purchase of goods by a person for commercial purpose is not a consumer. However, in Explanation to the said section it has been explained that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

                                                                                                                Contd……..……P/3.

( 3 )

Thus it is clear that if a person buys any goods and use the same for commercial purpose exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

Thus it is clear that if a person buys any goods and uses the same for commercial purpose exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment, then the said person can be treated as a valid consumer.

From the copy of the vehicle particular issued by the M.V. Department, Paschim Medinipur, we find that  the vehicle in question having registration No.WB-33B/9117  is a commercial vehicle. From the petition of complaint filed by the complainant, we find that there is no averment that the said vehicle is used by the complainant for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant  also did not adduce any evidence to prove that she uses the said tractor for the purposes of earning her livelihood by means of self employment. In the absence of such averment in the petition of complaint and in the absence of any evidence on this point, we must presume that the complainant uses the vehicle for commercial purpose for making profit. It has been clearly decided by the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in 2018 (2)  CPR575 (Gowhar Riyaz Khan Vs. M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. & another),  commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint. Therefore, in view of the said decision the present complainant is not entitled to file the present petition of complaint being not a Consumer. As such the present case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

            Point No.2 :   

  We have already found that the present case is not maintainable. So there is no necessity to decide this point on merit.    

           Point nos. 3 & 4 :-  

It has already been decided that the present case is not maintainable so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed.    

As a result the  case fails.         

                                   Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered

                         that the consumer case no.141/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.

                                                                                                                     Contd……..……P/4.

( 4 )

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost or be sent by Registered Post, if the free copy is not collected within 10 days from the date of order. The original documents, if any be returned to the parties and the extra sets be also returned on proper receipt.

 

      Dictated and Corrected by me

             

                

                       President                                    Member                                 President

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur