2007 (3) CPR 68
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
B.B. Vagyani, President; Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, and Smt. S.P. Lale Members
M/s. Comart Lithographers
Limited—Complainant
versus
M/s. General Motors India Ltd.
& Anr.—Opponents
Consumer Complaint No. 279/1998
Decided on 4-6-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
If a public limited company purchases car for its directors and car is found defective or dealer is not giving proper after sale service, then legal action for such defect in service can very well be brought by complainant company.

Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 11(2)(b)—Jurisdiction—Defects alleged in car purchased by complainant from OP No. 2 in Mumbai—OP No. 1 contending that as terms and conditions of allotment of cars, dispute between OPs and purchasers of cars was subject to jurisdiction of courts at Baroda (Gujarat)—Even if any such term made customers by company while selling cars, such term is not binding on customers—Such a term in any agreement or contract being against provision of law must be held to be not binding on customers. (Para 9)

       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d)(ii)—Commercial purpose—Complaint company purchased two cars for its use, one of which was found to be suffering from defects—Company is not in the business of selling cars—It had purchased two cars for its business purpose—That does not mean that complainant company had purchased the vehicles for commercial purpose. (Para 10)

       (iii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(f)—Defects—Complainant purchased two cars manufactured by OP No. 1 from OP No. 2—Alleging manufacturing defects in one car—Complainant has not adduced evidence of any expert to prove that car was having manufacturing defects—During warranty period all defects were rectified free of cost and nature of complaint would show that defects were minor in nature and they were duly rectified by OP No. 2—No complaint of any nature mentioned in job cards could be said to be pertaining to manufacturing defects as alleged by complainant company. (Para 11)

       (iv)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(r)(i)—Unfair trade practice—Complainant company alleged that OP No. 1 had put in advertisements in newspapers and its brochures that Opel-Astra cars purchased by complainant company, were manufactured on German technology, but engine of the car was manufactured in Australia which amounted to unfair trade practice—There is no thing wrong on the part of OP No. 1 in putting engine manufactured by its subsidiary in Australia, when on the whole Opel Astra car supplied to complainant company was manufactured based on German technology—There was no unfair trade practice. (Para 14)

       Facts of the Case:

       (A)Complainant company had purchased from OP No. 2 two Opel-Astra cars manufactured by OP No. 1. OPs had assured complainant that Opel-Astra was a product of meticulous ‘German craftsmanship’. Complainant, therefore, presumed that engines were manufactured in Germany, complainant alleged that engines were actually manufactured at Australia. Complainant further alleged a number of manufacturing defects in one of the cars. Complainant had taken car to OP No. 2 for repairs but defects have not been completely rectified. Complainant also alleged unfair trade practices on the part of OP No. 1 by inserting misleading advertisements.

       (B)Ops filed separate replies denying allegations, OP No. 1 questioned jurisdiction of commission saying that cars were allotted to all customers subject to jurisdiction of court as Baroda, Gujarat. It was also pleaded that cars were purchased by complainant company for commercial purpose for its business. Further contention of Ops is that engine used in the car has been developed by German Engineers and same was manufactured by subsidiary of OP No. 1 at Australia. OPs denied that car suffered from any manufacturing defects and whenever complaint alleged defects in the car, they were promptly rectified. OPs also pleaded that they had not made any misrepresentation in press advertisements or in the brochures.

       (C)Findings of the commission

       (i)Jurisdiction—Even if there was any clause in terms and conditions of allotment of cars that dispute, if any, between car purchaser and OP 1 or its dealer was subject to jurisdiction of courts at Baroda (Gujarat), such term in any agreement or contract being against provision of law will not be legally binding on customers.

       (ii)Commercial purpose—Complainant company is not in business of selling cars. It had purchased two cars for its business purpose. That does not mean that complainant had purchased vehicles for business purpose.

       (iii)Manufacturing defects—Complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to prove that car was having manufacturing defects. Nature of complaint would show that defect were minor in nature and they were duly rectified by OP No. 2 free of cost.

       (iv)Unfair Trade Practices—There is nothing wrong on the part of OP No. 1 in putting engine manufactured by its subsidiary in Australia, when on the whole Opel-Astra car supplied to company was manufactured based on German technology. There was no unfair trade practice.

       Result: Complaint dismissed.