Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Sharma, President and Heena Thakkar, Member
JAI PRAKASH SAHU - Appellant
Versus
TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANOTHER - Respondents
First Appeal No. FA/13/661.
Decided on : 25-02-2015
R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Santosh Tiwari, Advocate, for the Respondent
The appellant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act was determined based on the purpose of the vehicle purchase and the proof of inherent manufacturing defects.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Commercial Purpose - Section 2(1)(d)(i), Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 2(1)(d) - The court considered whether the appellant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The court referred to various judgments and observed that the appellant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose, and therefore, does not come within the purview of 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also noted that the appellant failed to prove any inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, and the expert opinion did not support the appellant's allegations. The court upheld the District Forum's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a Mini Truck Tata 407 for commercial purposes. The vehicle experienced problems, and the appellant filed a consumer complaint seeking relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and failed to prove any inherent manufacturing defects. The court upheld the District Forum's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Issues: Whether the appellant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the vehicle had inherent manufacturing defects.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and failed to prove any inherent manufacturing defects.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the District Forum's decision to dismiss the complaint was upheld.
ORDER
R.S. Sharma, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja - Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.140/2012. By the impugned order, complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that : for operation of his business, the appellant (complainant) purchased Mini Truck Tata 407 bearing registration No.C.G.15-AC-0790 from the respondent No.2 which is manufactured by the respondent No.1 at the cost of Rs. 6,28,554/- with the financial help of Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited. Warranty and Guarantee of 36 months was provided in respect of the said vehicle. After 2-3 months of the date of purchase of the said vehicle, gear box no.2852531YY 846470 was having some problem, which was neither replaced nor got repaired by the respondents. The appellant (complainant) spent a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in repairing of the said gear box and thereafter also the gear box was giving problem. In the gear box, there was manufacturing defect, which was not cured in spite of getting repaired the same due to which other parts of the vehicle were damaged. The mechanic informed that a new gear box would be installed. Due to damage of the gear box, the appellant (complainant) could not operate his business. The vehicle was parked in stationary condition and he was required to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as installment to the finance company and to pay salary to the driver. Due to non-payment of the installment the amount of interest has also been increased. Therefore, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has filed its written statement before the District Forum and averred that before purchasing the vehicle in question, the appellant (complainant) had taken test drive and he also understood regarding the service to be provided after purchase of vehicle and terms and condition and after his full satisfaction he purchased the vehicle in question and at that time the appellant (complainant) had not pointed out any deficiency. As per clause 9 of the warranty the appellant (complainant) has only those rights which have been mentioned in the warranty document. The appellant (complainant) purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood by self employment. The appellant (complainant) has not averred in the complaint to the effect that he purchased the vehicle for self employment and due to which he does not come within purview of consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) has appointed dealer on "principal to principal" basis and for the act committed by the dealer, the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) is not responsible. The manufacturing defect in the vehicle are different from the simple defect and the burden lies on the appellant (complainant) to prove that the vehicle in question is having manufacturing defect. The appellant (complainant) purchased the vehicle in question after obtaining financial help, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is only bailee of the financer and complaint in respect of such vehicle can only be filed after obtaining permission of the financer. The appellant (complainant) has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint that he obtained permission of the financer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It has also been pleaded that the appellant (complainant) has not done any free service, therefore, the warranty in respect of the vehicle in question was lapsed, but even then the respondent No.1 (O.P.No.1) during the warranty period has removed the problem in the gear and installed, and also replaced necessary parts, free of cost and after satisfying the appellant (complain
