Back
GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI
MR. JAGDISH PRABHUDESAI & MRS. VIDHYA GURAV, MEMBERS
NUHA TRAVELS – Appellant
Versus
GEMINI MOTORS & ANR – Respondent
Complaint No. 65 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bashir Herekar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajit Kantak, Mr. G. Agni, Advocate.
The judgment establishes the principle that the purpose of purchase determines consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and highlights the liability of service providers for deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that he purchased a vehicle for commercial use, but it showed defects and deficiencies, rendering it useless. He sought a refund of the amount paid to the opposite parties and compensation for financial losses and hardships.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, despite being a businessman, purchased the vehicle for self-employment and small-scale business, making him a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court held both opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to refund the amounts received from the complainant with interest and pay compensation for financial losses and hardships.
Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether the opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the complainant's purpose of purchasing the vehicle qualified him as a consumer. It also found that the opposite parties failed to provide the necessary documents and services, leading to financial losses and hardships for the complainant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties to refund the amounts received from the complainant with interest, pay compensation for financial losses and hardships, and take custody of the vehicle.
ORDER :
MR. JAGDISH PRABHUDESAI, MEMBER
1. By this order we shall dispose off the present Complaint dated 15.12.2016 filed by the Complainant herein against the Opposite Parties herein inter alia raising the consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case can be stated in brief as follows:
2. The Complainant has alleged in the complaint that he is the ‘consumer’ and the Opposite Parties are the ‘service providers’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. The case of the Complainant is that they carry on their business in the name and style of “M/s. Nuha Travels” for the last several years at the above named address and the said Establishment has earned immense reputation and goodwill in the eyes of all concerned customers, clients and the members of the business community in and around the State of Goa. It is alleged in the complaint that based on repeated representations made by Opposite Party No. 1 as regards the vehicle in question and the promise that the vehicle of the type needed by him i.e. Ashok Leyland 1618 BSIV would carry excellence in terms of results and without any defects at all at any time in future and the Complainant being in dire need of such vehicle, he accepted the said offer and decided to go for the purchase of the said vehicle in good faith.
4. The Complainant further alleged that he has purchased the said vehicle for the purpose of his own private business on a small scale and also for the purpose of earning his livelihood by honest means of self-employment as he intended to make the best use of the said vehicle for the aforesaid purposes. The description of the vehicle is: Ashok Leyland 1618 BSIV, having Engine No. GXEZ417433, Chassis No. MB1A3CHD1 GEXV9301 body type tanker. The Complainant has enclosed to the complaint the copies of the documents such as title, Insurance Certificate, Registration document, etc.
5. It is also alleged that the Complainant is in possession of Form No. 38 under Rule 62(1) issued by the authorized signatory of the Testing Station under Motor Vehicle Act issuing Certificate of fitness in respect of the said vehicle i.e. GA-0-T-4993 dated 10.10.2016.
6. The Complainant has further alleged that he has paid total amount of Rs. 20,16,000 (Rupees twenty lakh sixteen thousand only) to the Opposite Parties herein in different amounts in respect of different heads such as Tanker Chassis, Cabin building, Tanker building, Insurance, Registration Special number, Registration, Calibration, Painting, etc.
7. The Complainant stated that after the purchase of said vehicle the Complainant gave the said chassis to Opposite Party No. 2, Manufacture of S.S., M.S Road Tankers & General Fabricators, for building M. S. Tanker of 12,000 litres capacity with 4 numbers of compartment. The Complainant further stated that after the tanker is being built on the vehicle/chassis purchased by him, it is mandatory for every fuel tanker to obtain necessary Explosive Licence from the concerned authority which is the responsibility of Opposite Party No. 2 and accordingly process was being done by Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 voluntarily agreed to discharge the said obligation to the satisfaction of the Complainant at the initial stage but subsequently failed to comply with the same as the circumstances narrated hereinafter would indicate
8. The Complainant stated that he was surprised when the Opposite Party No. 2 informed the Complainant that the concerned authority refused to issue Explosive Licence to the Vehicle/Tanker for the reasons that the vehicle has excess weight than the required weight for issue of Explosive License. This was nothing but a lame excuse to avoid their liability at law as the Opposite Party miserably failed to obtain the said necessary Explosive Licence, thus putting the Complainant to the great hardship, disadvantage and financial loss to which the reference will be made hereinafter.
9. The Complainant furt
