The purchase of a vehicle by a company for its managing director's personal use does not constitute a commercial purpose, allowing for consumer protection remedies.

1. These revision petitions have been filed under S.21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 4.8.2010 of the State Commission in appeals No. 395 of 2009 and No. 1141 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 19.2.2009 of the District Commission in complaint No. 426 of 2006
M/s. Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. was the complainant before the District Commission and is hereinafter being referred to as the ˜complainant co.'.
M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Commission and is hereinafter referred to as the ˜manufacturer.
M/s. Lally Motors Ltd. was the opposite parties No. 2 and No. 3 before the District Commission and is hereinafter being referred to as the ˜dealer'.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant co. and and have perused the record. (The dealer was Order dated 23.9.2014.)

3. Briefly, the complainant co. had filed a complaint alleging defects in car bought by it.
The District Commission vide its Order dated 19.2.2009 held that ... the vehicle has manufacturing defect, which was latent in nature.... It allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer and the dealer (jointly and severally) to replace the car with a new one with fresh warranty or in the alternative to pay the price of the car amounting to Rs. 15,13,601 within 45 days. In default of compliance within 45 days it stipulated interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total price of the car from the date of the complaint till the vehicle was replaced or its price paid. It also awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000.
The manufacturer and the dealer both preferred respective appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission disposed of the two appeals vide its common Order dated 4.8.2010. It held that
...There were manufacturing defects in the car.... It modified the award made by the District Commission, holding Rs. 5 lakh in lumpsum to be appropriate compensation in lieu of the defects in the car as well as for harassment mental tension and inconvenience suffered. It also stipulated that if the said amount was not paid within one month it shall attract interest at the rate of 9% from the date of its Order till realisation.
The dealer has not agitated the Order of the State Commission. The manufacturer has filed the revision petition No. 4253 of 2010. It is aggrieved with the findings of ˜defect' in the ˜goods' (car) manufactured by it. The complainant co. has filed the revision petition No. 2176 of 2012. It is aggrieved with the dilution in the award by the State Commission.

4. In this matter the preliminary issue for consideration was whether the complainant co. was ˜consumer' within the meaning of S.2(1)(d)(i) of the Act 1986 and as such whether it could avail of the additional remedy available to ˜consumer' vide S.3 of the Act 1986.

5. Learned Counsel for the manufacturer argues that the complainant co. was not ˜consumer' as defined under the Act 1986. It had bought the car in its own name, i.e. in the name of a private limited company. It was for commercial purpose. He submits that it has been stated in para 11 of its complaint by the complainant co. itself that its managing director was using the car for business purposes wherein it has also been stated inter alia that due to breakdown of the car the complainant co. suffered loss of business of Rs. 2 crore.

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant co. argues that even though the car had been purchased by the complainant co. in its own name it was purchased for the personal use of its managing d