HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 3638/2019

CM Nos. 7288/2020 &

7564/2019

M/S Savvy Fashion Pvt. Ltd.

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Ms. Yashodhan Thakur, Advocate.

Vs

General Manager M/S Tata Motors and

ors.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Shamas Ud Din Shaaz, Advocate.

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

13.04.2022

(Open Court)

(Per:Thakur-J)

1.

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Jammu and

Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu

(for short, State Consumer Commission) whereby the appeal filed

by the petitioner before it against the order dated 9.9.2016 passed

by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jammu (for

short, District Consumer Forum) has been upheld and the appeal

dismissed.

2.

Briefly stated the material facts are as under:

3.

The petitioner is a private limited company, which claims that it

purchased a Tata Safari Vehicle from the respondents, which

suffered from certain defects. With a view to seek redressal of the

grievance, the petitioner claims that it filed a consumer complaint

before the District Consumer Forum at Jammu, which, however

Sr. No. 9

2

WP(C) No. 3638/2019

dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the vehicle

purchased by the petitioner, which is a private limited company,

was for commercial purpose, hence, the petitioner did not fall

within the definition of a 8Consumer9. The District Consumer Forum

also observed that the complainant-petitioner had not mentioned

in the complaint that the vehicle was purchased for personal use

and not for commercial use.

4.

The said order was challenged in appeal, which came to be

dismissed by the State Consumer Commission on similar grounds

that the petitioner herein did not fall within the definition of a

8Consumer9 being a Private Limited Company.

5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the Apex Court judgment

titled

Karnataka Power

Transmission Corporation and Ors vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt

Ltd and Ors, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1905.

7.

We have gone through the records of the case. The facts, which

emerge from the records are that the complainant is in fact a

private limited company and had purchased a Tata Safari Vehicle

from the respondents, which according to the petitioner, had

suffered from certain defects, in regard to which a complaint came

to be filed by the petitioner. Although in the complaint, the

petitioner was silent as to whether the vehicle in question had

been bought for any commercial purpose, yet after objections were

filed by the respondents, an affidavit was filed stating clearly that

3

WP(C) No. 3638/2019

the vehicle in question had been purchased for personal use and

not for commercial purpose.

8.

The judgment and order passed by the Divisional Forum, however,

is silent on whether the complainant was at all subjected to cross-

examination by the respondents. Even the counsel appearing for

the parties could not clarify whether the complainant in fact had

been subjected to any such cross-examination and whether the

respondents was in a position to belie the statement made on oath

in the affidavit before the District Consumer Forum.

9.

If that be so then, the statement made on oath in the affidavit that

the vehicle was purchased for personal use could not have been

ignored nor the fora below come to the conclusion that the vehicle

in question was being used for commercial purpose. Be that as it

may, the Apex Court in Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation’s case (supra) dealt with the provisions of Section

2(1) (m) of the Central Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short,

Act of 1986),