IMPORTANT POINT
If subject goods are purchased for resale or for any commercial purpose, purchaser of such goods is excluded from definition of consumer.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 24.09.2012 whereby the State Commission concurred with the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum-II at Visakhapatnam alleging that he purchased Skoda Octavia Ambience car from the OP no.3. It is the case of the complainant that after delivery of the vehicle, the petitioner noticed that a steering wheel of the car dragged towards the left side. He also noticed that reverse gear of the car was not functioning. The petitioner, therefore, visited the dealer, the OP no.3 on the very next day and asked him to rectify the defects. The vehicle was returned to the petitioner on 28.02.2010 stating that the defects were rectified. The complainant further noticed that the defects were still there and he again returned the vehicle to the OP no.3 for rectification of those defects but in vain. It is stated that on various occasions the car was sent to the service station of the OP no.3 for rectification of defects but the defects could not be rectified. The complainant issued legal notice to the OPs. Alleging the deficiency on the parties of the OPs, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. It may also be noted that during the process, the gear box of the car was replaced.

3. OPs resisted the claim by filing WS denying the allegation that the defects were not removed. It is claimed that there was no deficiency in service. The gear box was replaced and even the other defect was rectified. According to the opposite party, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. District Forum on consideration of pleadings as well as evidence produced on the record, came to the conclusion that neither there was any manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the main contention of the Opposite Parties that the vehicle in question is free of defect, and is in continuous use of the Complainant, stands unchallenged. Ex.A22 is the vehicle gate pass which shows that the Complainant received the vehicle in question from the Opposite Parties on 25-03-2010 after proper repair. The note written by the Complainant thereon on the said Ex.A22 stating that he received the vehicle under protest though the vehicle was not good, left pulling was the same, and reverse gear also not satisfactory cannot be taken at its face value as no prudent person will take a vehicle out from a service center without its being repaired. Moreover, in the present case, it was very dangerous to take the said vehicle on to the road with the alleged defects. So, we cannot but hold that the vehicle was fairly road-worthy as on 25-03-2010. Moreover, Ex.B3 sheet shows that when on 25-03-2010 the vehicle in question passed out, its reading has shown only 568 kilometers. As such, the allegation of the Complainant, that the reading in the meter was 3200 kilometers, cannot be true. Moreover, the Complainant failed to present before this Forum any material to the effect that the said vehicle is lying ideal and is not in use at all. So, the contention of the Opposite Parties, that the vehicle in question, is in use since 25-03-2010, i.e., for more than one year, stands unchallenged. Hence, the question of replacing the car in question or paying any, the in the alternative doesn’t arise. Therefore, we hold that the claim put forward by the Complainant is untenable and the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed.”

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the State Commission Hyderabad vide