Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President; Smt. A.S. Vijayakar,
Dr. A.K. Ghosh, Mr. Y. Krishan & Mr. Dr. Rais Ahmed, Members
WESTERN INDIA STATE MOTORS—Appellant
versus
SOBHAG MAL MEENA & ORS.—Respondents
First Appeal No. 12 of 1989—Decided on 8.11.1989
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjeev Khanna, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Nemo.
A person who purchases a vehicle for commercial purposes is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore, the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by such a person.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D)(I) - PURCHASE OF VEHICLE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - NOT A CONSUMER - JURISDICTION OF STATE COMMISSION - REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLE - COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY - AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR NON-AVAILABILITY OF VEHICLE DURING REPAIRS - LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a diesel Ambassador car from the dealer, the appellant herein, for running a taxi service. The car developed certain problems and was taken to the workshop of the appellant for repairs. The car was repaired and delivered to the complainant, who later filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging serious manufacturing defects and claiming replacement of the car and compensation for mental agony. The State Commission, without addressing the issue of jurisdiction, held that there was no fundamental manufacturing defect and dismissed the claim for replacement and refund of price. However, it awarded compensation for non-availability of the car during repairs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was not a consumer as he had purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes, and therefore, the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further held that there was no legal justification for the State Commission to award compensation for non-availability of the car during repairs in the absence of any claim or evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to replacement of the car or refund of price. 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony. 5. Whether the State Commission was justified in awarding compensation for non-availability of the car during repairs.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 excludes a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. 2. The purchase of a vehicle specifically for being used as a taxi is a purchase made for a commercial purpose. 3. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a person who is not a consumer. 4. In the absence of any fundamental manufacturing defect, the complainant was not entitled to replacement of the car or refund of price. 5. In the absence of any claim or evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents, the State Commission was not justified in awarding compensation for non-availability of the car during repairs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission, and dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President — This appeal has been preferred by M/s. Western India State Motors, Jaipur, who are dealers of Hindustan Ambassador cars manufactured by the second Respondent M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., against the decision rendered by the State Commission, Rajasthan, in complaint case No. 13 of 1989 on its file by order dated 25th July, 1989 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the first Respondent (Complainant) as compensation for the non-availability of the vehicle for the Complainant’s use during the period of ten days when it was said to be under repairs in the workshop of the appellant.
2. The fact of the case, insofar as they are necessary for understanding the contentions raised in this appeal may be shortly stated. The complainant, who is running a taxi service in Jaipur, purchased a diesel Ambassdor car manufactured by the second Respondent from the dealer, the appellant herein on 2.1.1989. At the time of the purchase the manufacturer had given a guarantee to the purchaser in the usual form which was to ensure for a period of twelve months or till the car completed 16000 km of running whichever event occurred earlier. Under the said guarantee, the manufacturer undertook to exchange or repair any part or parts of the car which needed replacement or repair by reason of defective workmanship or defective material except batteries, bulbs, tyres and tubes. It was stated in the guarantee that in respect of paintwork, the manufacturer’s obligation would terminate at the end of six months or when the car completed running 8000 km, whichever occurred earlier.
3. In the month of March, 1989, the car seems to have developed certain problems and the complainant took it to the workshop of the appellant where it was put into good running condition to the satisfaction of the complainant after effecting certain repairs. Free servicing had been done on two prior occasions when some minor problems were set right, in accordance with the terms of the guarantee. It was on 7.3.1989 that the complainant took the car to the workshop of the second respondent stating that the oil pressure was low and that in addition there were certain other problems also with the car. The car was examined by the mechanics. It was found that the rings and the engine bush had to be replaced after removal and opening of the engine. These works were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant who took delivery of the car on 13.3.1989 (12th March being Sunday) at 9.30 in the morning, after certifying in writing that he was fully satisfied about the repairs effected to the car. Thereafter, on 1.4.1989, the complainant approached the State Commission, Rajasthan with a complaint petition alleging that the car suffered from serious manufacturing defects which could not be set right by repair and that under law he was entitled to the replacement of the car by a new vehicle of the same description which should be free from defects. He also claimed compensation for ‘mental agony’ to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-. In the said complaint petition, M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. was impleaded as the first respondent and the appellant herein as the second respondent. The Opp. Parties No. 1 and 2 filed their objectionstatements before the State Commission. They raised the contention that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint inasmuch as the complainant was not a Consumer since he had purchased the vehicle for the purpose of running it as a taxi. They also disputed the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle suffered from any material defects and was liable to be replaced by a new car. The claim for damages was stoutly refuted by the respondents as totally untenable.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by either of the party before the State Commission and only the document of guarantee and the papers relating to service of the car were produced before it.
Although, the State Commiss
