DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2024.                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 20/07/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                              Member                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

I.A. NO. 418/2023 IN C.C. NO.352/2022

PETITIONER/ OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2&3

1. M/s. SML ISUZU Ltd., Regd. Office at SCO 204-205, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022. Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. M/s. SML ISUZU Ltd. Rep. by its Sales Authorized Person Anuj K Sethi, SCO 204-205, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.

(Rep. by Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil, Karipparambil Associates, HB 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 36)

VS

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT/OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1

1. Milton Lopez, S/o. Lopez, Managing Partner of M/s. Rani Travels, XL/1575, North Railway Station Road, Grand Annexe, Ernakulam 682018.

(Rep. by Adv. G. Hariharan, Praveen Hariharan, Smitha Praveen Vipindas M. V. & V.R. Sanjeev Kumar, M/s. G. Hariharan & Associates, 1^st Floor, ‘Shivakripa’, Elamakkara P.O., Kochi 682026)

2. M/s. Valloor Motors Pvt. Ltd., 11/303A, Seaport Airport Road, Thiruvamkulam, Ernakulam 682309.

(Rep. by Adv. Sree Vinayakan K.V. & Muhammed Hussain K.M.)

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President:

This Interlocutory Application (I.A.) was filed by the counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 &3/the petitioners, challenging the maintainability of the complaint filed against them. Upon careful examination of the arguments, submissions, and evidence presented by both parties, and in light of the legal precedents and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Question of Legitimacy of the Complainant as a Consumer: The primary contention of the opposite parties is the legitimacy of the complainant, in this case, to file a consumer complaint. The complainant, being the managing partner of M/s Rani Travels, purchased a SML ISUZU LTD EXE LX AC BUS from the 1st opposite party. The complainant's establishment, as per their admissions on their website, is a leading tour and travel operating house with a substantial fleet and staff. This points towards a commercial operation on a significant scale.
2. In light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Laxmi Engg. Works case and the subsequent interpretation in Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust v. Toshniwal Bros. (Bombay) (P) Ltd., it is clear that the concept of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is not extended to activities of a commercial nature on a large scale. The complainant's operation, as evidenced, falls squarely within the ambit of 'commercial purpose' as defined by the Act and interpreted by the aforementioned judgments.
3. Considering the complainant's extensive business operations, it is evident that the purchase of the bus in question was for a commercial purpose. As per the ratio decidendi of the cited Supreme Court cases, such transactions do not qualify the purchaser as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. Conclusion on Maintainability: Based on the foregoing analysis, it is held that the consumer complaint filed by M/s Rani Travels is prima facie not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case against the opposite parties 2 and 3. The nature and scale of the complainant's business activities place them outside the definition of a 'consumer' as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This interpretation is consistent with the legal reasoning established in the Laxmi Engg. Works case and its subsequent application in relevant case law.

5. The Complainant's Status: The evidence suggests that M/s Rani Travels operates an extensive travel business, owning and operating a significant fleet of luxury vehicles, and employing a considerable number of staff. This indicates a commercial operation of a large scale, which is beyond the scope of the term 'consumer' as intended by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In view of the above, this Commission finds that the complaint lacks the necessary legal standing to be maintained under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the complainant does not qualify as a consumer. Therefore, the Interlocutory Application filed by the opposite parties No. 2& 3/the petitioners is allowed.

It is hereby ordered that the complaint filed by M/s Rani Travels against opposite parties 2 and 3 is not maintainable and the complaint is hereby dismissed on this ground.  No costs.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this 18^th  day of January, 2024.

Sd/-                     

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-  

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar  

kp/

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                        

by post:           

                                                                             C.C. No. 352/2022

                                                                        Order date: 18/01/2024

kp/

Despatch date:

By hand:                                                                        

by post:           

                                                                             C.C. No. 352/2022

                                                                        Order date: 18/01/2024