National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Sai Industries vs Mahindra & Mahindra Limited & Anr. on 25 May, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1227 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 03/11/2015 in Appeal No. 911/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. SRI SAI INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI PAWAN ARORA R/O G-A, 328-A, MIA ALWAR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED & ANR. REGISTERED OFFICE, GETEWAY BUILDING APOLLI BUNDER, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA 2. STERLING MOTOR COMPANY G.P. 11, HSIDE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SECTOR-18 GURGAON HARYANA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In RP /339/2016 For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate-R-1 R-2- Ex-parte (Vide order dated 07.04.2016) R-3 -Deleted (Vide order dated 07.04.2016) For the Respondent : In RP /1227/2016 For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Mootha, Advocate Dated : 25 May 2016 ORDER O R D E R (ORAL) JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Counsel for the parties present. This order shall decide two cross-revision petitions which have been filed in respect of the common order of the State Commission dated 03.11.2011.
2. Arguments heard. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the present petitions were filed by Sri Sai Industries. We have perused the original complaint filed before the District Forum. It is mentioned that the complainant / petitioner had purchased one Mini-Truck, open body, in order to promote its business. Consequently, this a commercial transaction. The title of the petition itself mentions 'Sri Sai Industries' , GA 328A, MIA, Alwar, through its Partner, Sh. Pawan Arora. The present case is not covered by Explanation appended to Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of C.P. Act, 1986, which mentions :
"Explanation.-- For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment".
3. The question of a partner earning his livelihood by means of self-employment does not arise. Consequently, we accept the revision petition No.339/2016, filed by OP to set aside the order rendered by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. The revision petition No. 1227/2016, filed by the complainant for enhancement of the amount stands dismissed for the above said reasons. However, the complainant is given liberty to approach the appropriate forum / civil court for redressal of its grievances, as per law.
4. The amount deposited by the OP - Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., with the District Forum, be returned after expiry of 90 days' from today, along with interest accrued thereon, if any. District Forum ordered, accordingly.
Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER