AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsels for both sides.
Perused the record.
It is admitted that the subject vehicle was purchased on 20.09.2010 and registered in the name of the complainant - M/s. E.G. Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., which is a private limited company.
A finding has been given by the State Commission in its impugned Order dated 18.04.2017 that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986 reads as follows:
"(d) "consumer" means any person who,-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
[Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]"
It is admitted that the complainant is a private limited company; the subject vehicle was purchased by and registered in the name of the company; the company is engaged in the business of spares of elevators. The business is not carried out exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.
It is clear that the complainant - company is not a consumer under the Act 1986.
During the course of hearing in this Commission, in the daily order sheet dated 03.08.2017 the following is recorded:
"The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention to para 2 (v) of the memo of appeal, in which it is stated that the said car was purchased by the appellant for personal use of the Managing Director of the appellant Company.
"The learned counsel has been asked to produce relevant record from his office in support of his contention within a period of four weeks.
"List the matter for further hearing on 03.10.2017."
A Board Resolution stated to be dated 20.09.2010 was filed by the appellant - company vide its application dated 03.10.2017. It reads as below:
RESOLUTION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED IN THE MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY OF EASY ELEVATOR (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED HELD ON 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 AT 11.30 AM AT THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY AT 75, SUNDAR NAGAR, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR PURCHASE OF NISSAN X-TRAIL CAR FOR PERSONAL USE OF DIRECTOR MR. DINESH KUMAR JAIN
"RESOLVED THAT consent of Board of Directors of the Company be and are hereby accorded to purchase of a Nissan X-Trail car in the name of the company by availing finance assistance from Tata Capital Limited.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT consent of the Board be and is hereby accorded that the above "Nissan X-Trail" car be used by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain, Director of the Company for his personal use as a reward after considering his outstanding performance in developing business for the company.
RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jain or Mr. Nemi Chand Gupta, Director(s) of the company be and is/are hereby authorized jointly/severally on behalf of the Board of company to make necessary arrangements and to sign and make applications, papers and other things to give effect to the above resolution."
The subject vehicle was purchased on 20.09.2010. The Board Resolution is stated to be dated 20.09.2010. Loan for the subject vehicle was got sanctioned and paid prior thereto. The consumer complaint was filed in the State Commission in 2013. It was decided on 18.04.2017. The Board Resolution stated to be dated 20.09.2010 was not filed before the State Commission.
We agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that this document does not inspire confidence.
In the facts and specificities of the case, the placing of this Board Resolution stated to be dated 20.09.2010 before us in appeal is not viewed favourably.
The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. Section 3 specifically provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. That is, the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force; the provisions of this Act give the consumers an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.
The State Commission had not gone into the merits of the case. It had dismissed the complaint as not maintainable since the complainant company was not a 'consumer' under the Act 1986. We have also not gone into the merits of the case. The appeal has been dismissed on the same ground. It therefore goes without saying that the complainant - company is free to agitate its case in any appropriate forum/court as per the law (but consumer disputes redressal fora under the Act 1986 are not for it).
The complaint as well as the appeal are clearly frivolous as well as vexatious. This is a fit case to direct the appellant - complainant to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. However, having regard to the respondents' (i.e. authorized dealer, manufacturer's) overall position per se and to the overall situation of the case, recourse to the provisions of cost provided for in Section 26 of the Act 1986 is not being adopted. (The respondents would no doubt appreciate the overall perspective, and maybe moreso after perusing paras 16, 17 below.)
It is but also to be seen that the time and resources of the State Commission and of this Commission have been wasted in such manner and for such evident purpose. It is thus appropriate and albeit necessary to give stern advise of caution to the complainants through a small monetary deterrent ( / cost), to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for better protection of his interests under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the totality of the case, it is felt just, apt and reasonable that Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) may be deposited by the revision petitioners - complainants with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks.
The first appeal is dismissed with the above direction.
A copy of this Order may be sent to the District Forum and the State Commission by the Registry.