AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMPLAINANT is a private company and is carrying on the business of manufacturing S.W. Pipes having its work at village Gholumajra. The registered office of the complainant is at Chandigarh. COMPLAINANT purchased one Cielo GLE-OL-MT motor car from the respondent on payment of Rs. 5,42,398/-. The motor car was delivered on 21.2.1996. The tyres of this motor car were of 155-SR-13 instead of the prescribed size of 175- 70R-13T. This is apparent from the delivery challan itself. It did not give satisfactory service and the non-suitability of the tyres and other defects pertaining to power steering, power brakes, breakage of belt etc were brought to the notice of respondents from time-to-time. The rubber of the tyres was minimised after running 10341 kms. In all it has been alleged that complainant was supplied a defective motor car and has been put to a lot of harassment, tension, inconvenience etc. COMPLAINANT has claimed refund of the entire price of Rs. 54,42,398/- together with interest @ 24% per annum and a further sum of Rs. 3 lacs on account of loss of business or in the alternative respondents may be directed to deliver a new motor car with the prescribed specifications of tyres.
THE respondents filed a reply wherein it has been averred that vehicle has been purchased by an industrial/commercial concern and loan was obtained by the company. THE vehicle is registered in the name of the company and repayments of loan are being made out of the company funds. THE use of the vehicle by the Managing Director had been commercial for running of the business and complaint is not maintainable. Respondents have specifically admitted that on account of shortage of tyres 175- 70R-13T, some other tyres were substituted. It has further been averred that there is no guarantee of the respondents regarding the rubber parts. Service repairs etc. were performed to the satisfaction of the complainant. During the test of the vehicle it was found that till 28.10.1996 it had run 25626 kms and the respondents were still willing to satisfy the complainant. An important plea raised on behalf of the respondents is that me vehicle was purchased not by an individual but by M/s. Crystal Pipes and Ceramics Private Limited. It shall be useful to reproduce some important lines from Para No. 3 of the complaint itself which are as under: "That due to widespread business activities of me complainant company, a necessity was felt to buy a car for the official use. A decision was taken by the complainant to buy the newly introduced car of DCM Daewoo Motors Limited of the Model GLE- OL-MT. The complainant approached its Financier M/s. Lloyds Finance Limited, SCO No. 335-336, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. On behalf of the complainant company, M/s. Lloyds Finance Limited deposited the whole of the cost of Rs. 5,42,398/-of the car with respondent No. 3".
A perusal of these lines fortifies the plea of the respondents that complainant was not a consumer within the definition of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that Managing Director of the complainant had been going to the office and coming back and this could not constitute utilisation of the vehicle for any industrial purpose or business purpose because the complainant have altogether different line of industry where they manufacture S.W. Pipes and the aforesaid industry has nothing to do with the motor car. This contention is not acceptable espedally as seen above the vehicle was purchased for official use by the Director or Directors of the complainant company. In view of Para No. 3 above, the complainant cannot wriggle out of his own contentions/assertions. Though there were defects in this vehicle especially that its tyres were not of the prescribed dimensions yet the jurisdiction of this Commission is doubtful because the complainant was not a consumer and the conclusion is that complaint fails and it is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.