DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC 12/2012 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
M/s JK Tyre and Industries Ltd
Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi ..........Complainant
Versus
- Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd
(Audi Division)
3 North Avenue, Level -3
Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbai 400051
Maharashtra, India
- M/s Zenica Cars India Pvt Ltd
Narsinghpur Industrial Area,
-
NH-8, Gurgaon, Haryana
- Pirelli Tyre (Suisse) SA
Branch Office India
620, 6thFloor,
International Trade Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold without going into its merits. The complaint has been filed in the name of M/s Barnala Industries Ltd. The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. It had purchased a Jeep “Bolero” from OP1 , an authorized dealer of the said vehicle. OP2 is the manufacturer of the same. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and required replacement. The complainant company had purchased goods or obtained the services of the OPs for commercial purposes. The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only. Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”
In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”
In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S Fertilizers (P) Ltd & Anr I appeal no. 723/2006 again a similar view was taken by the National Commission. This was followed in the case of BELMAKS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no 07 of 2013.
Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.
File be consigned to R/R.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________
( S N SHUKLA ) ( RAKESH KAPOOR )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
