The court concluded that a purchase made for business promotion does not exclude the purchaser from being classified as a 'consumer', and the allegations of misrepresentation were unsubstantiated.

JUDGMENT

1. First Appeal No. 153 of 2019 is filed by Trans Car India Private Limited, and cross First Appeal No. 394 of 2022 is filed by Mr. S Paramaguru, the Complainant. These appeals challenge the Order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Puducherry („State Commission‟), dated 27.04.2018 in Complaint No. 8/2024 which partly allowed the complaint.

2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both Appeals are similar, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, FA No.153 of 2019 is being considered as lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from CC No. 8/2024.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the State Commission.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he wanted to purchase a Mercedes Benz car and approached OP-2 for the same in September 2012. On 01.11.2012, he accepted the ex- showroom price of Rs.36,05,153, and the vehicle he wanted was delivered to him the next day through OP-3. Soon after the purchase, on 04.12.2012, the Complainant approached OP-2 for servicing and he was informed about an alloy wheel defect, for which replacement was promised, but deferred due to lack of stock. On 14.03.2013, only one wheel was replaced despite defect in two wheels. He was again assured that the remaining wheel would be replaced later. Similar problems recurred on 21.06.2013 and 22.06.2013, and OP-2 replaced the defective alloy wheel with a stepney and assured proper replacement in due course. Subsequently, additional issues arose relating to the anti-lock braking system (ABS), cruise control, and wiring harness. The Complainant handed over the vehicle to OP-2 on 17.10.2013. However, the same was returned on 21.11.2013 without complete repair, and the problems persisted. On 02.12.2013, he discovered that the car supplied had an engine and windshield of the 2011 model, though records reflected 2012 as the manufacturing year. Despite repeated requests, OP-2 failed to clarify the discrepancy. Further, the first registration of the vehicle was dated 30.04.2012, even though the Complainant had approached OP-2 only in September 2012, making it clear that an old used vehicle was sold to him and misrepresented as new. Further defects continued, including battery and wiring harness issues, with repeated but ineffective repairs between December 2013 and June 2014. Feeling cheated by the sale of a used and defective car, the Complainant approached the State Commission seeking appropriate relief.

5. On being issued notice, OP-1 filed the written version contending that the vehicle was purchased from OP-2, an independent authorised dealer operating on a principal-to-principal basis. There is no merit in the Complainant‟s allegations and contended that the complaint deserved to be dismissed. It was further contended that he was not a “consumer” under the Act, 1986, as he purchased the car for business purposes. The allegations of misrepresentation and blank signatures were completely false. The vehicle was sold on 01.11.2012 and registered thereafter, and the manufacturing date was 22.03.2012. The “2011” prefix in the commission number was an internal transaction code, and not the manufacture year. OP-1 further contended that if the Complainant had any doubt, he should have raised it when the first service invoice was issued on 04.12.2012 instead of waiting until 02.12.2013. The warranty remedies were limited to repair/replacement of defective parts of the vehicle and not r