2024 Supreme(SC) 560

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008
With
Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 19536-19537 of 2017
With
M/S. CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2633 of 2018
Decided on : 09-07-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Commercial purpose – To determine whether goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for a commercial purpose or not, within definition of a “consumer” as contemplated in Section 2(1)(d) of Act, would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case.
(2) Unfair Trade Practice--A trade practice which for the purpose of promoting sale of any goods by adopting deceptive practice like falsely representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, style or model, would amount to unfair trade practice.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)] – Consumer – Commercial purpose – Definition of “consumer” does not include a person who obtains any goods for “resale” or for “any commercial purpose” – What needs to be determined is whether object had a close and direct nexus with profit generating activity and whether dominant intention or dominant purpose for transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for purchaser and/or their beneficiary – Onus to prove that goods were purchased for “commercial purpose” would be on opponent-seller and not on complainant-buyer – In present case, there is nothing on record to show that car was used for any commercial purpose by respondent-complainant – Inherent defect of overheating of car in question had persisted despite appellant having provided rectification measures – Advice given by technical expert of appellants that overheated portions of rear cabin of car should be cooled by directing draft from air-conditioning vents towards said portion, was not only an illogical advice but was an absolute improper advice given to conceal defect in car. (Paras 10, 14, 16 and 23)

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – People do not purchase high-end luxurious cars to suffer discomfort more particularly when they buy vehicle keeping utmost faith in supplier who would make the representations in brochures or advertisements projecting and promoting such cars as finest and safest automobile in the world – Respondent-complainant having suffered great inconvenience, discomfort and also waste of time and energy in pursuing litigations, impugned order passed by National Commission of awarding compensation by directing appellants to refund purchase price of Rs. 58 Lakhs to respondent-complainant, and take back car as such does not warrant any interference – Interest of justice and balance of equity would be met if respondent-complainant is permitted to retain the car and appellant is directed to refund Rs. 36 lakhs instead of Rs. 58 lakhs as directed by National Commission. (Para 25)

C.A. Nos. 19536-19537/2017 and 2633/2018

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Automobile – Manufacturing defect – A trade practice which for the purpose of promoting sale of any goods by adopting deceptive practice like falsely representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, style or model, would amount to unfair trade practice – There was nothing on record produced by appellants to show that they had disclosed either in Owner’s Manual or in Brochure about limited functioning of airbags, which according to them was an additional safety measure in car – National Commission has also rightly balanced equity by awarding Rs. 5 lakhs only towards deficiency in service on account of frontal airbags of car having not deployed at the time of accident – Respondent-complainant permitted to retain car and appellant directed to refund Rs. 36,00,000/- to respondent by way of compensation within three months. (Paras 36, 37, 39 and 40)

Facts of the case:

These appeals involve common question of law - whether purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for use/personal use of its directors would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now re-enacted as Consumer Protection Act, 2019)?

Findings of Court:

Since the National Commission has considered in detail the evidence and the material on record adduced by the both the parties, well-considered judgment dated 11th September 2017 passed by National Commission does not warrant any interference.

Result : C. A. No. 353 of 2008 partly allowed and C. A. Nos. 19536 & 19537 of 2017 and C. A. No. 2633 of 2018 dismissed