BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                   Dated this the 21^st day of February 2018

                                                                             Filed on : 06.07.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                     President.

 Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member

 Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                         Member.

                            CC.No.272/2017

                                  Between

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

[1)      A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         The complainant, Sri. Domson Joseph had purchased a Tata Aria Car with registration No. KL07BX 9526 from the opposite party.  The car was registered as a Taxi car.  There was a ‘Buy back offer’ from the opposite party The owner of the Aria Car is eligible for getting buy back price at 50% of the ex-showroom price if it is sold back to the opposite party as per the above Buy back offer.  The complainant had also joined a service scheme by name ‘AMC Gold’ offered by the opposite party.  As per the above scheme if the Aria Car is garaged more than one day the complainant is eligible to get Rs.3000/- per day for the period in excess of one day.  It is submitted that the car of the complainant was garaged for repair for more than one day several times but the opposite party had offered the benefit under the ‘AMC Gold’ as discount on purchases of extra fittings effected by the complainant.  It was informed by the opposite party that they cannot give the benefit under the scheme as ‘cash’.  The complainant submitted that his car was garaged for 47 days due to the complaint of fuel injector.  The delay occurred for the repair was for want of spare parts but the benefit under the AMC gold scheme was not given to the complainant.  The services were being done promptly by the opposite party.  But when the complainant approached the opposite party for effecting service of the vehicle on 27.06.2014, the opposite party demanded service charges on the ground that they did not get the AMC service charges from Tata Motors.  It is submitted that the complainant had to suffer a lot of inconvenience due to quality problems of the vehicle sold to him and he could not earn his livelihood from the Aria Car which was being run as a ‘Taxi Car’.  The benefit of ‘buy back offer’ also was not given to the complainant despite his request.  It was informed that the offer was limited to those purchasers who had purchased the Aria Cars in the month of June.  In that case, the buyback offer issued to the complainant in the month of July is an act of cheating committed by the opposite party for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum seeking direction of this Forum, the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.2.5 lakhs, to pay Rs.3000/- per day under the AMC Gold scheme during the days the vehicle was garaged for more than one day to pay Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation for not granting the Buyback offer.

2)     Notice was issued from this Forum to the opposite party.  The opposite party filed their version on 26.08.2017. 

3)     Version of the opposite party

        It is submitted that the complainant is owing 2 Tata Vista cars and 2 Tata Aria car, that the complainant is operating a travel agency in the name and style ‘Domson Travels’.  Hence is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, that the ‘AMC gold scheme’ and the ‘Buyback offer scheme’ are evolved by the manufacturer of the vehicle, Tata Motors Ltd and the manufacturer is not made a party to the case, that the complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is submitted that the benefit of buy back scheme is available only to the purchase of Aria car made during the period from 1^st June 2013 to 30^th June 2013 and in the instant case the complainant had purchased the Aria car on 26.07.2013.  Therefore he is not entitled to the benefits under the ‘Buy back offer’.  Tata Motors Ltd. has the right to curtail the period of the above offer.  The opposite party had rendered all services to the complainant in accordance with the terms of the relevant schemes and had in no manner caused any loss to the complainant. It is submitted that the opposite party had not offered any deficiency in service to the complainant or practised any unfair trade practice.  Hence the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4)     The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

ii)       Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

iii)      Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant 

5)     The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A8 and the proof affidavit filed by the complainant.  The opposite party adduced no oral evidence.  The opposite party furnished documentary evidences which were marked as Exbt.B1 and B2.

5)     Issue Nos.(i)

        The complainant contended that he had purchased a Tata Aria car valued Rs.742,150/- manufactured by Tata Motors in July 2013 and the car was registered as a Taxi car with Registration No.KL07BX7526.  The relevant invoice is not produced by the complainant and Exbt.A1 certificate of Registration reveals that the car was registered as a ‘Taxi’ car.  There is no pleading in the complaint that the above car was purchased for earning his livelihood by running it as Taxi.  Exbt.A2 is the Buyback assurance issued by the dealer (The dealers stamp & signature is not shown in ExbtA2).  Exbt.A3 is the details of cheques issued to Tata Motors Ltd.  Exbt.A4 series is the service history of the subject car KL7 Bx9526.  Exbt.A5 a letter dated 16.04.2016 issued from the customer Relations Officer to the complainant.  Exbt.A6 is the letter dated 19.02.2016 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.  EXbt. A7, and Exbt. A8 are job sheets.  The opposite party contended that the car was being used by the complainant for commercial purposes of the travel agency run by the complainant in name and style ‘DOMSON TRAVELS’.  The complainant raised no objection to the above contention of the opposite party.  For the above and in the absence of a pleading that the car was being run as a taxi for earning his livelihood, we find that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ envisaged under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act since the car purchased by him was being used for commercial purpose.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and the 1^st issue is decided against the complainant.  

6)     Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

        Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

7)     In the result, the complaint is found not maintainable.  Hence fount not allowable also.  The complaint is therefore dismissed.

         Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of February 2018.

                                                          Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                          Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

                                                          Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                                     Forwarded by order

                                                                   Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch :

                             By Hand      :

                             By Post       :

                                              APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::   

                                      ………………………