CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2001) 05 NCDRC CK 0018

MANSUKH vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 28 May 2001 · Citation: 2001 3 CPJ 246

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C.Datta , S.Majumder , D.Karformas J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 356 words
1.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.1999 dismissing the case as not maintainable. According to the Forum, the present case is hit by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act inasmuch as the car was obtained for commercial purpose.

2.

THIS finding of the Forum has been challenged in appeal. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and it is engaged in the manufacture and export of Tarpaulins and the car was purchased for personal use of the partners and as such it cannot be said that the purchase of the car was made for commercial purpose. It is not disputed that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export. The Maruti car was purchased in the name of the partnership firm. According to the appellant, the car having developed defects after the purchase, the Firm approached the Forum with a prayer for replacement of the same. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the purchase of the car is not in any way related to the activities of the Firm. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the car was purchased in the name of the Firm and it had become an asset of the partnership firm and it is engaged in generating business of the parternship firm. It has however been stated by the appellant that the car is meant for use by the individual partners. It may not be overlooked that the partners use the car to increase their mobility and to accelerate the growth of the business activities of the partnership firm. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the car was not in any way related to the business activity of the partnership firm. This being the position we think that the Forum was justified in dismissing the case. The complainant may approach the proper Authority for redress, if so advised. With this observation, the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of the Forum is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.