Haryana

StateCommission

CC/122/2017

ORIENT BELL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZENICA CARS INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH MADRA

31 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint No.122 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 07.03.2017

Date of Decision: 31.03.2017

 

 

1.      Orient Bell Limited through its Joint Managing Director, having its corporate office at IRIS House, 16, Business Centre, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.

2.      Sh. Madhur Daga, Joint Managing Director, M/s Orient Bell Limited having its corporate office at IRIS House, 16, Business Centre, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046.

                                                                             .….Complainants

 

Versus

 

 

1. Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd. (Audi Gurgaon) through its Director, Sh.Rashpal Singh Todd, Plot  288-A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon 122016, Haryana.

Also at:

Orchid Centre Sector-53, Golf Course Road,Gurgaon-122001.

2. Sh.Rashpal Singh Todd, director, Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd., (Audi Gurgaon), DPH01, Central Park-1, Sector Road,Sector-42, Gurgaon, Haryana.
3. M/s Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (Audi India),through its Managing Director, Mr.Thierry Jean Marie Lespiaucq, 3^rd Floor, 7 on the Pali Hill, Pali Hill road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra.

Also at:

Silver Utopia, 3^rd & 4^th Floor,Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala,Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

4. Mr.Thierry Jean Marie Lespiaucq, Managing Director M/s Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (Audi India), 3^rd Floor, 7 on the Pali Hill, Pali Hill road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra.

Also at”

Silver Utopia, 3^rd & eth Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

5. Audi AG c/o Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (Audi India), 3^rd Floor, 7 on the Pali Hill, Pali Hill road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra.
6. Prof. Rupert Stadler, The Chairman,audi AG, C/o Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. (Audi India), 3^rd Floor, 7 on the Pali Hill, Pali Hill Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Ankur Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It is alleged that complainant No.2 is joint Managing Director of Complainant No.1 which is company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act of 1956 (In short “Companies Act”) and is involved in manufacturing and sale of ceramic and vitrified tiles.   Vehicle in question was purchased from O.P.Nos.1 and 2 for the personal use and utility of complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 is not dealing in sale or purchase or any kind of commercial activity concerning vehicles.  Complainant No.1 paid Rs.67,00,000/- only for the purchase of this car. Warrantee was of two years and unlimited mileage , but, within span of four years and seven months  after covering 33,807/- Kms, car started giving problem from time to time, as mentioned in the complainant. Huge payment was paid for repairs. So O.Ps. be directed to refund sale price alongwith Rs.2,87,467/- spent on repairs with interest @ 8% per annum. They be also directed to pay Rs.Four lacs for deficiency in service besides Rs.One lac towards litigation expenses.

2.      Arguments at the time of admission are heard. File perused.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the car was purchased for the personal use of complainant No.2 who is joint Director of complainant No.1. They are not involved in sale and purchase or hire of vehicles. So it cannot be alleged that this car was purchased for commercial purpose and they are not covered by definition of consumer. In support of his arguments he placed his reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in  Tata Enginneering  and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs.Subhash Ahuja & Anr. 2013(48) R.C.R. (Civil) 840.

4.      This argument is of no avail. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that the payment was made from the income of company i.e. complainant No.1. As per receipt dated 03.08.2012 the delivery was taken on behalf of  M/s Oriental Bel  Limited.  It is no-where mentioned therein or any other document that the car was purchased for personal use of complainant No.2.  He is joint director and there could be Managing Director etc. also.  There is no resolution on the file showing that car was purchased for personal use of complainant No.2. When it is purchased for affairs of company it amounts to purchase for commercial purpose and they are not covered by definition of consumer as opined by Hon’ble National commission in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers (P) Ltd.,  and India Automobiles (1960) Ltd. Vs. G.S.Fertilizers, decided on 07.02.2013 in first appeal No.723 of 2006 and 736 of 2006.  Relevant portion of Para No.9  of the above said judgement is reproduced as under:-

“We note that in his complaint before the State Commission the Respondent-complainant had clearly stated that the vehicle was purchased for the use of its Managing Director.  We agree with appellants’ contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a ‘commercial purpose’ since the Managing director of a private limited company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for ‘commercial purposes’ as a perk of his office.”

          After the opinion of Hon’ble National commission in the aforesaid case laws, it is clear that if anyone has purchased vehicle for commercial purpose such person cannot claim himself to be consumer.  In the present case vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.  It is no where alleged by complainants that this vehicle was purchased for earning his livelihood.

5.      The complainant  cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because in Tata Engineering and Locomotive co. Ltd. And Anr. Cass (supra) the complaint was filed by private person and not a company claiming that he purchased that vehicle for his own use, which was duly proved.  As a sequel to above discussion it is clear that complainants are not covered by the definition of consumer and complaint is not maintainable before consumer for a. Resultantly the complaint is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

April 3rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.