
View 3923 Cases Against Tata Motors
SMT. SHEELA SINGH filed a consumer case on 01 Feb 2021 against TATA MOTORS in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/08/2363 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Feb 2021.
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2363 OF 2008
(Arising out of order dated 30.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.50/2007 by the District Commission, Sidhi)
SMT. SHEELA SINGH. … APPELLANT.
Versus
MANAGER, TATA MOTORS & ORS. … RESPONDENTS.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2679 OF 2008
(Arising out of order dated 30.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.50/2007 by the District Commission, Sidhi)
COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT.LTD & ANR. … APPELLANTS.
Versus
SMT. SHEELA SINGH & ANR. … RESPONDENT
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR : PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL : MEMBER
O R D E R
01.02.2021
Shri R. K. Sengar, learned counsel for the complainant Smt. Sheela Singh
Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 Tata Motors.
Shri R. K. Dhote, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :
Aforesaid two appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. This order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.2363/2008 unless otherwise stated.
2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sidhi (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.50/2007.
-2-
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 & 3/opposite party no.2 & 3 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has pointed out that though specific plea was taken by the opposite parties before the District Commission that the complainant does not fall within the term of ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant/appellant has not pleaded that business of plying bus is being conducted by her for self-employment for earning her livelihood. She inspite of specific plea being taken in this regard in the reply, did not file affidavit or evidence to controvert the said objection raised by the opposite parties.
4. We have gone through the pleadings and the impugned order and we find that the appellant/complainant did not make any averment that said business of plying bus is being conducted by her for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. A specific plea was raised by the opposite parties in that regard in reply but no counter affidavit was filed and the District Commission proceeded to pass the impugned order.
5. Having regard to the fact that there is no averment as aforesaid by the complainant satisfying that she will be covered under the term Consumer, the District Commission has committed error in deciding the complaint.
6. In view of the aforesaid we set-aside the impugned order and dismiss the Appeal no. 2363/2008.
7. In view of the aforesaid, connected Appeal no. 2679/2008 filed by the appellants/opposite party no. 2 & 3 Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. stands allowed.
-3-
8. This order be placed in First Appeal No.2363/2008 and a copy be placed in First Appeal Nos. 2679/2008.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)
President Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.