SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President; Mr. B.L. Anand, Member
M/S. SURYA AGROILS LTD.—Complainant
versus
M/S. ALLIED MOTORS LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
Case No. C-63/92 — Decided on 9.4.1992

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. V.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

A person who purchases goods for commercial purposes may not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the warranty clause may not apply if the warranty period has expired.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Commercial Purpose - The court held that the complainant, who purchased a car for the purpose of the company's business, cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The use of the car had a nexus with the production of oil, and therefore, the complainant's claim for replacement of the car was rejected.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a car for the company's business, claiming that the car had developed defects and should be replaced.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant, who purchased the car for the company's business, did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The warranty period had also expired before the filing of the complaint, and therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the warranty clause applies to the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, who purchased the car for the company's business, cannot be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The warranty period had expired before the filing of the complaint, and therefore, the complainant could not take benefit of the warranty clause.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed in limine.

ORDER

Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — An Ambassador Car was purchased by the complainant from the respondent on 9.2.91. The warranty which was given by the respondent to him was as follows:

"For a period of twelve months or 16,000 kms., whichever occurs earlier from the date on which a new car is delivered, Hindustan Motors Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company will exchange or repair any part or parts thereof which need replacement or repair by reason of defective workmanship or defective material (except batteries, bulbs, tyres & tubes and accessories not originally fitted by the Company). In respect of paint work the Company's warranty obligation shall terminate at the end of 6 months or 8,000 kms., whichever occurs earlier."

2. It is alleged that car has developed certain defects, which have not been removed by the respondent.

3. It has been prayed by the complainant that the respondents be directed to replace the car.

4. The question that arises for determination is whether the complainant is a consumer. It is not disputed that the complainant owns a factory, in which edible oil is being manufactured and the car has been purchased for the purpose of the Company. Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word 'Consumer'. According to that the

"consumer" means any person who, —

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes; or

(ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are available of with the approval of the first mentioned person;"

5. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that there is no nexus between the car and the production of the oil and therefore, the car should not be considered to have been purchased for a commercial purpose.

6. We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. The car has been purchased from the funds of the Company and the complainant is claiming depreciation of the car and expenses of running the car from the Income Tax Department. The car can be used by the officers for the purposes of the Company. If conveyance is not provided to the officers, the work of Company is likely to suffer. So it cannot be said that the use of Car has no nexus with the production of the oil. Therefore, we reject the submission.

7. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel has argued that this case also falls under Sub clause (ii) of the aforesaid Clause (d). He submits that there is deficiency in service of the respondent as they could not remove the defects in the car.

8. It is true that in the warranty given to the complainant, it was provided that if any part required replacement within a period of twelve months or 16,000 kms., whichever is earlier, that part would be replaced or repaired; but as already mentioned above, the car was purchased in Feb. 1991 and, therefore, the warranty period expired before the filing of the complaint. Under the circumstances the complainant cannot take benefit of the warranty clause. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the same in limine. The copy of the order be sent/given to the complainant.

Complaint dismissed.

__

s



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top