Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President;
Dr. R.N. Panigrahi Member & Smt. J. Patnaik, Members.
ABHAY KUMAR PANDA—Complainant
versus
BAJAJ AUTO LTD. & ANR.—Opp. Parties
C.D. No. 1 of 1990—Decided on 23.3.1991
For the Complainant :Mr. M.S. Panda, Mr. K.S. Jena & D.P. Sarangi, Advocates.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. S.C. Lal, Advocate.
Purchase of goods for self-employment to earn livelihood does not constitute 'commercial purpose' under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(D) - PURCHASE OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLE - CONSUMER - COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - INTERPRETATION - REMEDIES.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a Bajaj Auto Trailer for self-employment to earn livelihood. He faced several defects in the vehicle from the beginning, which were not properly attended to by the supplier. Despite repeated repairs, the defects persisted. The complainant issued a lawyer's notice claiming damages and replacement of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant is a consumer as the purchase of the vehicle was not for commercial purposes but for self-employment to earn livelihood. The court found that the vehicle had manufacturing defects and that the defects were not removed to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the vehicle purchased had defects? 3. Whether the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant? 4. What is the loss suffered by the complainant? 5. What relief can be granted to the complainant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term 'commercial purpose' in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that where the primary object of purchasing goods is not to earn profit but to earn livelihood by hard toil and giving sweat and blood, it cannot be said to be commerce or commercial purpose. 2. The court found that the vehicle purchased by the complainant had manufacturing defects, as evidenced by the fact that a defective chassis was found during repairs. 3. The court held that the defects were not removed to the satisfaction of the complainant, as the vehicle continued to have defects even after repairs and replacement of the chassis.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite parties to receive the defective vehicle from the complainant and deliver back the same after removing all defects within two months. The court also directed that a fresh warranty be given for one year after the defects are removed.
Mr. Justies S.C. Mohapatra, President — Purchase of a Bajaj Auto Trailer which was found to be defective is grievance of the purchaser in this complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. Complainant is an unemployed young man who possessed a driving licence. He purchased the vehicle for self-employment to earn livelihood taking loan of Rs. 34,000/- from United Commercial Bank, Nuapada, Cuttack. Balance Rs. 6,566.95 paise towards the total price of the vehicle at Rs. 40,566.95 Paige was paid by him. Added to it, complainant paid annual insurance fees, registration charges and tax. This vehicle was registered as OIU 2295 after getting delivery on 27.12.1988. Since 4.1.1989 complainant was carrying goods for delivery at different places. From the date vehicle was taken delivery, some defects were found which were attended to by the supplier (Opp. Party No. 2). During operation, complainant found defects like low pick up, trouble in gears, breaks, chains, engines, clutch, shock absorber and engine eye nuts were also broken. While moving, there was unnatural thrilling of the vehicle on account of defective welding and thin plates being used m the body. This vehicle was taken to the supplier very often for repairs but the defects could not be rectified. For this complainant had also to purchase spare parts when required by the supplier. On many occasions, vehicle was stranded on the way also. On 15.2.1989, the vehicle met with an accident which was repaired by the supplier for which insurer settled the claim as per terms of the policy. While repair was undertaken, supplier (O.P. No. 2) found on 10.3.1989 that cause of trouble was defective chasis. After obtaining the chasis from the manufacturer, supplier changed it and on 20.6.1989, it informed complainant to take delivery of the same. Complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 18.7.1989 but found the defects continuing. Vehicle remained idle, with opposite party No. 2 from middle of February till middle of July, 1989. Disheartened, complainant had issued a lawyer's notice on 12.6.1989 claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 78,181.60 paise.
3. On the aforesaid undisputed premises, complainant alleged that the vehicle has manufacturing defects; from the beginning and defects were not properly attended to. There was delay on account of insincerity of the supplier to get the vehicle on road. Assurance of supplier that the defects if any found on the vehicle being put to operation shall be removed as and when detected was not complied with. Complainant had discussion with Mr. Roul Gupta, Assistant Zonal Manager of opposite party No. 1 at the workshop of opposite party No. 2. Although Sri Gupta was satisfied about defects in the vehicle, losses and damages caused to the complainant, he did not agree to indemnify since he had no financial power. Thereafter, lawyer's notice was issued on 28.9.1989 to replace the vehicle with a new one and indemnify the losses and damages. Complainant asserted that he got offers for the vehicle being used by intending parties on monthly payment of about Rs. 3,500/- or near about in the month of January itself but the same could not be accepted by the complainant on account of defects being found perpetually. Since opposite party No. 1 did not honour the claim stating that complainant had contravened the instructions, this complaint has been filed making a claim of Rs. 1,06,244.25 paise with pendente lite and future interest at 12.5% per annum along with future loss of income of Rs. 3,500/- per month and grate rent at Rs. 250/- per month till realization of the claim dues and prayed for a direction to take back the Bajaj Auto Trailer OIU 2295 from the complainant.
4. Case stated by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in two separate statements is almost the same. Case of opposite party No. 1 is that it is a renowned manufacturer of motorized twowheelers and three-wheelers and is car
