Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/663

PRIME HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE LEGAND PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 27.05.2016

     Date of Decision: 06.06.2016

 

Complaint Case No.FA-663/09

In the matter of:

M/s Prime Honda

Capital Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

World Trade Tower,

Ground Floor,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                 ………….Appellant

 

Versus

 

The Legend Pvt. Ltd.

E-4, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-110065.                                    …..........Respondent

 

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes        

 

O.P. Gupta, Member(Judicial)

JUDGMENT

          The OP has come in the present appeal against order dated 29.7.09 passed in complaint case no.1638/05. The complaint has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.44,552/- alongwith compensation for Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

          The appeal can be disposed of on short point whether a car purchased by company can be made subject matter of complaint under Consumer Protection Act. A company purchasing the car cannot be said to have purchased it for self employment. It has been so held by National Commission in FA-723/06 titled as General Motors India Pvt. Ltd V/s. G.S. Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. decided on 7.2.13. Similar views have been taken by this commission in complaint case no.247/09 titled as Ankit Jain V/s. Honda C.L. Cars India Ltd. decided on 16.10.12.

          The counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of the National Commission FA.169/04 titled as Harsolia Motors V/s. National Insurance Company decided on 3.12.04. The facts of the said case are totally different. That pertains to claim against Insurance Company and it was held that insurance stand on a different footing.

          In view of the repeated decisions holding that if a car is purchased in the name of company, it is for commercial use complaint against Consumer Protection Act does not lie, present appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.         

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. One copy of the order be sent to district forum for information.

 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)