National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ajitha Chit Funds (P) Ltd. vs Tata Engineering And Locomotive Co. ... on 1 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)CPJ204(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Challenge in this revision, is to the order dated 10.5.2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai dismissing appeal against the order dated 6.5.2002 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Only few facts need be noticed for deciding this revision. On 13.12.1999 the petitioner/complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car for Rs. 4,05,993.20 from respondent No. 3/opposite party No. 3, service centre of respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2, authorized dealer of respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, manufacturer of the car. Petitioner alleged that car was frequently sent to respondent No. 3 for repairs right from 9.5.2000 but the defects were not removed. Car was, thus, left with respondent No. 3 on 21.5.2001 and since then it is with respondent No. 3. Complaint seeking replacement of the car was contested by filing written version by respondent No. 3 which was adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was inter alia, stated that there was no inherent manufacturing defect in the car; when car was left with respondent No. 3 it had run nearly 35,000 kms; car was purchased for commercial purpose and complaint was, thus, not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act').
3. Submission advanced by Mr. Sogy Searia for petitioner is that the car in question was having manufacturing defect inasmuch as it was giving excessive noise. In support of the submission, our attention has been drawn to the copies of job cards at pages 16, 18, 20 and 22. These job cards would show that the job requested was for checkup of excessive engine noise. Car was having diesel engine which gives more noise compared to a petrol engine. Indisputedly, the petitioner did not file affidavit by way of evidence or examine any automobile engineer to state that the car was having any manufacturing defect. In absence of evidence of expert to that effect and car having diesel engine, it cannot be concluded as rightly held by Fora below that car was having manufacturing defect. That apart, it is not in dispute that the car was purchased in the name of petitioner which is a company running chit fund business and purchase was, therefore, relatable to commercial purpose. Petitioner is, therefore, not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) and complaint not maintainable under the Act. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.