Per Mr. Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member :
Heard Ld. Counsel of the Complainant finally on the point of admission and complaint is disposed off by this order.
2. The Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Opponent No.1 is an identity of M/s Aadya Motor Company Pvt.Ltd. for after sale service and repairs of the vehicles manufactured by Opponent No.2.
3. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant’s Company purchased two cars viz. Honda Accord V6 Model in the year 2004 and Honda City zx 1.5 cvt in the year 2006 for the use of their Directors. Honda Accord V6 car was badly damaged due to fall of a huge tree on it owing to heavy rains and wind on 24.7.2010. The said damaged car was sent to the Opponent No.1 on 27.7.2010 for estimation of damage. The repairing estimate was given to the Complainant to the tune of `4,00,432/- by the Opponent No.1. Necessary repairs were required to be carried out by the Opponent No.1. However, after the first repairs were carried out, amount of ` 3,41,399/- was duly paid by the Complainant to the Opponent No.1. Thereafter, the car did not work properly as there was problem of automatic locking system and again the car was required to be repaired. These repairs were also not carried out properly by opponent No. 1 and again the said car was required to be sent for repairs to opponent No.1 . Proper repairs were not carried out to the car though an expenditure of `4,07,926/- incurred (i.e.for car No. MH-06-Y-6363 and `61,489/- of car No. MH-06-AB-8443). The first mentioned car was subjected for repairs repeatedly. However, Opponent No.1 did not carry out the repairs fully to the satisfaction of the complainant and therefore, Directors of the Company were required to undertake their day-to-day working by hiring vehicles, causing great inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainant and therefore, they have filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service rendered by the Opponent No.1 on account of failed repair service to the above mentioned cars.
4. The Ld. Counsel of the Complainant pleaded that the Complainant is a consumer under section 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the Commission is empowered to entertain this complaint. The Complainant has admitted himself in the appeal memo that it is Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the subject Honda Cars were purchased by the Company for the use of its Directors to promote and to discharge day-to-day functions of the Company. We have pointedly enquired with the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant whether there is any record to distinguish private use and Company use of the car by its Directors. The Ld. Counsel replied that though such record is maintained, he is not in position to produce before this Commission.
5. We are therefore, of the view that this being a complaint from the Company engaged in the commercial activities and the cars purchased for use of its Directors to promote the work of Company does not fall within the provision of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and can not be entertained by this Commission and therefore, it cannot be admitted. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :
O R D E R
The complaint is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
Pronounced dated 17th November 2011.
