Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi and Mrs. Saria Khan, Members
PUSHPA MEENA—Petitioner
versus
SHAH ENTERPRISES (RAJASTHAN) LTD. & OTHERS—Respondents
Complaint Case No. 4 of 1989—Decided on 8.8.1990
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : Nemo.
For the Opposite Parties : Nemo.
A person who purchases goods for consideration and obtains such goods for commercial purposes is not included in the definition of consumer as given Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 12 & 13 - MANUFACTURING DEFECT - WARRANTY - COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - JURISDICTION - COMPENSATION - REPLACEMENT OF JEEP - REFUND OF PRICE - MENTAL AGONY AND LOSS. The complainant purchased a Jeep for commercial purposes, namely, to run it as a taxi. The Jeep developed certain defects within the warranty period. The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking replacement of the Jeep or refund of its price, compensation for mental agony and loss, and expenses incurred in taking the Jeep to the workshop and bringing it back. The State Commission held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she had purchased the Jeep for commercial purposes. Therefore, she could not invoke the provisions of the Act. The Commission further held that there were no manufacturing defects in the Jeep and that the opposite parties had fulfilled the terms of the warranty. The repairs and replacements contemplated by the warranty were done, and the complainant had been using the Jeep as a taxi thereafter, after giving satisfaction notes to the opposite parties. The Commission also held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation for mental agony and loss. However, it awarded the complainant Rs. 1,400/- as compensation for the period when the Jeep remained in the workshop for repairs. The complaint was accordingly rejected.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Jeep for commercial purposes, namely, to run it as a taxi. The Jeep developed certain defects within the warranty period. The complainant filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking replacement of the Jeep or refund of its price, compensation for mental agony and loss, and expenses incurred in taking the Jeep to the workshop and bringing it back.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as she had purchased the Jeep for commercial purposes. Therefore, she could not invoke the provisions of the Act. The Commission further held that there were no manufacturing defects in the Jeep and that the opposite parties had fulfilled the terms of the warranty. The repairs and replacements contemplated by the warranty were done, and the complainant had been using the Jeep as a taxi thereafter, after giving satisfaction notes to the opposite parties. The Commission also held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation for mental agony and loss. However, it awarded the complainant Rs. 1,400/- as compensation for the period when the Jeep remained in the workshop for repairs.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether there were any manufacturing defects in the Jeep? 3. Whether the opposite parties had fulfilled the terms of the warranty? 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and loss?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression 'commercial purpose' has not been defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Its common parlance meaning should be given, and according to that, commercial purpose is that purpose the object or aim of which is to make profit. 2. A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. 3. When the buyer has accepted the goods or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract repudiated, unless there is a term of contract or implied to that effect.
Final Decision: The complaint was accordingly rejected.
Mr. S.K.M. Lodha, President — The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) (“the Act”) against the opposite-parties on February 21, 1989 before the State Commission.
2. It has been alleged that the complainant purchased a Mahendra Jeep Model CJ-500-D/91 W.B., two wheel drive Engine No. 44439, Chassis No. 44439 on 2.12.88 for Rs. 1,281,638.00 after making payment of price to opposite-party No. I. At that time it had run 1618 kms. The jeep has been mentioned as brand new jeep in the Bill. In para 2 of the complaint it is stated as under:—
“DIESEL AVERAGE KI MALUMAT KARNEY PUR DIESEL AVERAGE KAREEB 8 KM. PRATI LITRE DENE KI JEEP MEI SHIKAYAT MILI DHYAN SE DEKHNE PUR CHASSIS KE DAHINE PICHHLEY HINSSAY PUR ANV BAAYE PAYEDAN MEI BAND (TEDAPAN) DIKHAYE DIYA. JEEP KA ENGINE KAM BREAK PRASHION KARATA HUA MILA.”
A complaint of the aforesaid defects was made to opposite party No. 1 on 30.12.88. The complainant was asked to bring the Jeep on 2.1.89 as at that time, there was no mechanic available on 2.1.89 service was done and left paidan was repaired. Other defects remained as they were. As the defects continued, the complainant was asked to bring the Jeep for repairs on 9.1.89. The mechanic after inspecting it told that the engine can somewhat, be alright after the rings etc. are changed. The complainant requested opposite party No. 1 to replace the Jeep but no assurance was given to this effect. At that time Jeep had already run about 4055 kms. At that time the Jeep was within the warranty period. There was correspondence as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint for replacing the Jeep. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 asked on 17.1.89 to bring the Jeep to Kola. It was detained there upto 28.1.89. The complainant has alleged”….…
IS AVDHI MEI JEEP KE ENGINE KO KHOLNEY PUR RING AADI SAMAN GHATIYA KISM KA NIKLA. ISKE BAVUJOOD NAYEE JEEP NAHI DEE GAYEE. TATHA KUCHH PURJEY BADAL KAR JEEP VAPIS SAMBHLA DEE HAI. JEEP KE ENGINE KO KHOLNEY SE BHI JEEP KE ENGINE KE MUKHYA PARTS STANDARD QUALITY KE NAHEE MILNA PRAMANIT HO CHUKA HAI.
3. The complainant has stated that the opposite parties are dealers of Mahindra & Mahindra Jeep Company who did not supply a good Jeep to her. The Jeep on account of the defects detailed in para 2 cannot be said to be a brand new Jeep.
4. The complainant has prayed that a direction may be given to the opposite parties to replace the Jeep and in the alternative to refund its price Rs. 1,28,638.00 alongwith (i) Insurance premium, Road Tax, Permit expenses etc. Rs. 5,000/- (ii) compensation for taking the Jeep to Kota several times and its non-user on account of repairs etc. Rs. 5,000/- and (iii) Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and loss. This complaint was filed on Feb. 21, 1989.
5. The complainant has filed the following documents (1) Invoice dt: 2.12.88 (Ex. C/1); (2) certificate of Registration (Ex. C/2); (3) Form P Co. P Part B (Ex. C/3); (4) Copy of notice dt: 11.1.89 (Ex. C/5); (5) Copy of telegram (Ex. C/6); (6) Acknowledgment of receiving Jeep for repairs (Ex. C/7); (7) Premium Receipt (Ex. C/8); (8) Postal Receipts (Ex. C/9 to Ex. C/11); Acknowledgments (Ex. C/12 to Ex. C/14).
6. Opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 filed their version of the case on April 10, 1989 contesting the complaint. It was stated in the version of the case that pre-delivery inspection was given and after being satisfied the Jeep was purchased by the complainant. It was denied that information regarding 8 kms. average was given. The Jeep was brought for service on 2.1.89 and at that time it had run 3648 kms. The Ring and Piston were changed on 20.1.89 and at that time it had run 4834 kms. Thereafter on 2.2.89 when it had already run 6510 kms. one Chandra Prakash pointed out the following defects:— (1) Diesel Tank leakage (2) Light check up and (3) Wheel seal leakage. It was stand that opposite-party No. 2 gave reply dated 12.1.89 to the letter dt: 11.1.89 in which it was stated that
