1. This complaint is filed by the complainant Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited which is public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956, having registered office at F- 8 MIDC Industrial Area Hingna Road Nagpur 16, against the two opposite parties,  one is the Head of India operations,  BMW India,  address: DLF City, Phase II, DLF Cyber City, Phase- 2, No 8,  Tower B, 7^th floor, Gurgaon, New Delhi and the opposite Party no. 2 is Munich Motors with address:  7, Tatya Tope Nagar, West High Court Road, Nagpur. The complaint is related to the failure of the engine of the BMW vehicle purchased by the complainant while traveling through a waterlogged patch of the Road.
2. The brief facts in deciding this complaint are as follows,

The complainant Jayaswal Neco Industries Limited a Public Limited Company purchased a BMW 25 series vehicle from Navaneet Motors Private Limited, from Thane, Mumbai on 30^th September 2010. While traveling on road on 25^th June 2013, the complainant was traveling and enjoying the luxury of his expensive vehicle along with two other vehicles of the same luxury class. While passing through a patch of road which was water logged, suddenly the complainant’s vehicle broke down in the middle of Railway Junction. On the next day 26^th of June 2013, the technician of opponent no. 2 visited and inspected the vehicle. According to him the reason for the failure of the vehicle was, the water accumulated on road entered the anterior compartment of the engine, because of which the BMW vehicle was broken down. The complainant observed that the other two vehicles of the same luxury class passed without any breakdown but this vehicle broke down in the middle. Even after communication with opponent no. 2,   the opponent failed to provide services to the complainant and due to this unprofessional behaviour of opponent no. 2, the complainant filed a complaint against both the opposite parties with allegations that the other two vehicles of the same class by the complainant could sail through the same patch of the road effortlessly and without any problem but this vehicle BMW, faced the problem and the problem of the vehicle on road could not be identified by opponent no. 2.  Further there was an exchange of communication between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The complainant was not satisfied by the replies and answers given by Opposite Party no. 2. 

3. Aggrieved by the gloomy response by the opposite party no. 2, the complainant sent emails complaining to both of the opposite parties.  Since it was diagnosed that water entered the engine that caused the total failure of the vehicle, further repair decisions took a long time of 19 days.  Opponent no.2, informed the complainant that the engine of the same vehicle needs to be replaced, and by placing an order with the main company in Germany, the same will be available.  This process may take two months and hence the complainant got annoyed due to this reply from opponent no. 2. Opponent no. 2 also failed to arrange an alternate vehicle for a high-value- customer like the complainant, due to which the complainant had to use a taxi for almost around 4 months and there was an unnecessary expenditure. It is the grievance of the complainant that BMW vehicles are not suitable for Indian roads. Also getting parts to be replaced from Germany is time taking. The complainant is not able to enjoy the luxury-class vehicle for his business. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur,  with prayers that the opponents be directed to pay the amount spent for repairing the vehicle Rs. 5,89,613/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 50 lakh towards discomfort, mental distress and psychological trauma suffered by the complainant.
4. We heard the rival submissions and arguments advanced by learned advocates of both parties during the final hearing and perused the record.  Considering submissions of advocates for both parties,  record, and scope of the complaint, the following points arise for our determination, and our findings thereon are noted as against them for the reasons herein below:

POINTS:

REASONS:

1. AS TO POINT NO. 1: “CONSUMER’

According to the pleadings and submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant complainant, the complainant is a public limited company and a high-class luxury vehicle like BMW was purchased by the complainant along with other similar vehicles. The complainant filed this complaint, after using the vehicle for 3 years before the first time incidence of breakdown.  According to the learned advocate, the complainant is a consumer and the opponents are service providers.  Advocates for the opposite party no. 1 and no. 2 submitted that the complainant is a public limited company and hence not a consumer. Similarly, the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes like the business of the complainant. In view of this learned advocates for the opposite party strongly opposed the complaint.  We have gone through the records.  And confirm that, the BMW vehicle was being used for the business of the complainant who is a public limited company. Clearly, the complainant is not a consumer within the scope and meaning of the definition of the Consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence we hold that there        is no consumer - service provider relationship between the complainant and the opponents.  In view of this the answer to POINT no. 1 as NEGATIVE.

2. AS TO POINT NO.2: “DEFICIENCY, NO. 3: RELIEFS

In view of the answer to point no.1 as negative, the other points do not survive. Clearly, this is not a Consumer Dispute, hence there is no reason why the other points need to be considered. So no questions arise for further hearing on the other points. In view of this, the other points were not considered. The complainant is free to adjudicate this matter before the appropriate authority.

3. AS TO POINT NO. 4: What Order?

In view of holding that, the complainant is not a consumer, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Consumer Complaint is dismissed with a cost quantified to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
2. Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.