RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Complaint No. 401 of 2016
TD Rugs Pvt. Ltd. through its Director,
Deep Chaurasia, Perjaptipur Aurai Road,
S.R.N. Bhadohi. …...Complainant.
Versus
1- Customer Care Manager, Mercedes Benz India
Pvt. Ltd., E-3, MIDC, Chakan, Phase III, Chakan
Industrial Area, Pune-410501, Maharashtra, India.
2- Daimlar Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.
3- M.S. Smart Hoops Pvt. Ltd., K.N. 353,
Uttar Dhauna, Tiwariganj, Faizabad Road,
Lucknow. .…Opposite Parties.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Mr. Nitin Kumar Mishra, Advocate for complainant.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Mr. Dilip Mani, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Date 26.2.2020
JUDGMENT
Complainant TD Rugs Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Deep Chaurasia, Perjaptipur Aurai Road, S.R.N. Bhadohi has filed this complaint against opposite parties (1) Customer Care Manager, Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, MIDC, Chakan, Phase III, Chakan Industrial Area, Pune-410501, Maharashtra, India, (2) Daimlar Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. and (3) M.S. Smart Hoops Pvt. Ltd., K.N. 353, Uttar Dhauna, Tiwariganj, Faizabad Road, Lucknow under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this State Commission.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Nitin Kumar Mishra appeared for complainant.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh appeared for opposite party no.1.
(2)
Ld. Counsel Mr. Prashant Kumar appeared for opposite party no.2.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Dilip Mani appeared for opposite party no.3.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant is a company and it has purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. As such, complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable under the Act.
It has been contended by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that the complaint company has purchased the vehicle in question for personal use of its Director. As such, complainant is a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is maintainable under the Act.
I have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has referred judgment dated 8 July, 2016 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in consumer Case no.51 of 2006 titled Crompton Greaves Limited & anr. vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. wherein Hon’ble National Commission has classified the goods and services made available by a company to its directors or employees into following three categories:-
- The goods and services which are obtained for and made available to the directors or employees of the company and are used by them only for their personal purposes, unconnected with the business of the company. For instance, the cars used by the directors and employees of the company for their
-
shopping, outing, recreations, etc. or for commuting to any from the office of the company. Another example can be the air conditioners and furniture provided at the residence of the directors and employees of the company or the telephone or broadband got installed by the company at their residence.
- The goods and services made available to the directors or employees of the company and used by them primarily for their personal purposes but incidentally, also for the purposes of the company. For instance, a car used mainly for outings, recreations, personal commuting etc. Of the directors and employees or their families, but also for visiting the factory and officers of the company or attending the business meeting.
- The goods and services made available by a company to its directors and employees primarily for the purposes of the company and used by them mainly for the purposes of the company but incidentally also for their personal purposes. For instance, a vehicle purchased for being used as a staff car or a delivery van, but sometimes also used for the personal purposes of the directors or employees, unrelated to the business of the company.
Para 17 A of the complaint is reproduced below:-
“That car is purchased by company through its director, Deep Chand Chaurasia for purpose of personal use, attending business meeting, factory and for commutation used by the director for enhancing his skill in business.”
In para 18 of the complaint, it has been averred that due to defective car the company has lost the commercial gain in business.
In view of above averments of complaint the car purchased by complainant company through its director comes within category C as per above judgment of Hon’ble
(4)
National Commission and it is for commercial purpose of the complainant company.
Relevant part of above judgment of Hon’ble National Commission is extracted below:-
“As far as the goods or services falling in category (c) are concerned, since the dominant purpose behind such acquisition is to advance and sustain the business activities of the company and the use for the personal purposes of the directors or the employees being incidental, it can be safely said that such an acquisition was for the commercial purposes of the company.”
In consumer complaint no.306 of 2014 titled Pharos Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tata Motors Limited, JLR India (Proprietorship of) Tata Motors Limited, AMP Motors Pvt. Ltd. decided on 1.9.2014, Hon’ble National Commission has held that the car purchased by Pharos Solutions Private Limited for its legal director is for commercial purpose and Pharos Solutions Private Limited is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of above, it is crystal clear that the complainant company has purchased Mercedes Benz car in question for use of its Director for commercial activities of the company. As such, complainant company is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is not maintainable under the Act.
In view of conclusion drawn above, complaint is dismissed with liberty to complainant to approach appropriate court or authority in accordance with law.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)
President
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
