Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2380
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member, Dr.Nisha A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member, Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member
Sagar Motors – Appellant
Versus
Narsinha Laxman Metkari – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 705 OF 2022 | COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 171 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv.M.S.Kokate
For the Respondents:
The court found that the respondent was not a consumer under the Act as he purchased the vehicle for business purposes, negating his claim for refund.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(7) - Definition of consumer - Complaint challenged by dealer of vehicle on the grounds of business use by complainant - Vehicle not delivered due to government rule - Complaint deemed out of purview of Act - Findings disagreed with the lower court. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
(B) Appeal - The appellant argued that the respondent does not qualify as a consumer under the Act due to his intention of business use, being a businessman and having received the booking amount refund. (Paras 9, 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The respondent paid a booking amount for a commercial vehicle but sought cancellation due to inability to pay the difference amount after the manufacturer ceased production. The appellant refunded the booking amount.
Findings of Court:
The respondent's complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act as he is not a consumer due to the business nature of the purchase. The prior ruling was quashed.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that as the respondent intended to purchase the vehicle for profit, not personal use, he was not considered a consumer, thus negating his claims for refund.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant contests lower court's decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. grounds of appeal based on consumer definition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of transaction and booking refund. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. businesses cannot claim as consumers under the act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final order quashing previous decision. (Para 14) |
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 23/04/2025)
Per Mrs.Dr.N.A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.
1. This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Osmanabad (‘District Commission’ for short) in Consumer Complaint No.171/2020. In the said case, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay booking amount of Rs.2,05,000/- with 9% interest and also directed to pay Rs.77,530/- as an insurance amount from the date of insurance to deposit the entire amount with 9% interest. And to pay the Rs.55,000/- which has been deposited by the respondent for the debt with 9% interest as well as Rs. 10,000/- towards the compensation for mental, physical agony and the expenses of the case.
2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Osmanabad in the consumer complaint No.171 of 2020 on 14/03/2022, Appellant filed an appeal on the following grounds.
3. That Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Osmanabad has erred in deciding the complaint as the complainant himself admitted in Para No.6 of the complaint that, as per the Government rule , the manufacturer of Vehicle M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd. Has stopped production of BS IV model Vehicles. In this situation dealer of Vehicle should not be held responsible for non- delivery of vehicle. There is nothing deficiency in service. The complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service. Therefore ex-party order passed by the Ld.
District commission Osmanabad is fit to be set aside.
4. It is therefore, Appellant prayed before this Commission, may be allow the appeal and Order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Osmanabad may be quashed and set aside.
5. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as such that Respondent No.1 is the businessman. He approach to the appellant o 24/1/2020 and taken the quotation of commercial heavy vehicles of M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd. ‘Hywa Tipper’ 2518 IV (10 Tyres), the cost of the said vehicle is of Rs. 37,64,763/-.
6. Respondent No.1 paid booking amount of Rs.2,05,000/- for purchasing commercial heavy vehicles of M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd. ‘Hywa Tipper’ 2518 IV (10 Tyres),after that he applied for vehicle loan from Respondent No.2 i.e. Bank. Respondent No.2 sanctioned his loan of Rs. 25,57,995/- and Respondent No.2 paid Rs.77,530/- to Cholamandal Insurance Company towards vehicle insurance from 17/3/2020 to 16/3/2021.
7. Appellant submitted that as per the Government rule, company has stopped production of BS IV vehicles. In this situation dealer of vehicle should not be held responsible for non- delivery of vehicle. Even respondent No.1 suppressed the fact that he does not want to purchase the said vehicle as the price of vehicle was of Rs.37,64,763/- and sanctioned loan amount was Rs.25,57,995/-. Respondent no. 1 was unable to manage the difference amount. Therefore he himself approached to the appellant and requested for cancellation of booking of vehicle and refunds the booking amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. So appellant refunded booking amount to the respondent No.1 by RTGS on 23/3/2020. Appellant also submitted that he is not responsible for the payment of policy amount of Rs.77,530/- which paid to the Cholamandal insurance company.
8. Appellant further submitted that Respondent does not come under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act -2019 as respondent himself admitted in the complaint that he is businessman and vehicle is being used for the purpose of business. As per section 2(7) (i) of Consumer Protection Act-2
