State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Globe Cv Pvt. Ltd. ( Globe Trucking) vs Gobind Transport And Others on 7 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
(1)
First Appeal No. 863 of 2022
Date of institution : 11.10.2022
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
M/s Globe CV Pvt. Ltd. (Globe Trucking) through its Authorized
Person Mr. Nirmal Sharma, Village Mehndipur, Tehsil Khanna,
District Ludhiana
...Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Gobind Transport, VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar,
through its Proprietor/Owner Gurinder Singh son of Amarinder Singh,
resident of Village Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
...Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Dhingra Trucking Private Limited, GT Road, Village Bastara,
Gharonda, Tehsil - Gharonda, District Karnal, Haryana-132114
3. Bharati Benz Registered Office Daimler India Commercial
Vehicles Private Limited, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Oragandam, Mathur Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu 602 105 India
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having Registered
Office Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002
...Respondent Nos.2 to 4/OPs No.2,3&4
(2)
First Appeal No. 1012 of 2022
Date of institution : 23.11.2022
Reserved on : 28.11.2025
Date of Decision : 07.01.2026
First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 2
Dhingra Trucking Private Limited (Bharat Benz Authorized Dealer),
situated at NH-01, Village Bastara, Gharaunda, Tehsil & District
Karnal, through its Manager
...Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
Versus
1. Gobind Transport C/o VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District
Rupnagar, through its Proprietor/Owner Gurinder Singh son of
Amarinder Singh, resident of Village Ghanauli, Tehsil & District
Rupnagar
...Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Globe Trucking Ludhiana, C/o Village Mehandipur, Khanna,
Punjab 141 401
3. Bharati Benz Registered Office Daimler India Commercial
Vehicles Private Limited, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre,
Oragandam, Mathur Post, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu 602 105 India
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having Registered
Office Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi-110002
...Respondent Nos.2 to 4/OPs No.1,3&4
First Appeals under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Rupnagar in C.C. No. 43 of 2021.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 3 Present :-
For the appellant : Sh. Shivam Grover, Advocate
(Through VC)
For respondent No.1 : None
For respondent No.2 : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Svamin Sharma, Advocate for
Sh. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate
VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
By this order of ours, two Appeals i.e. First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 1012 of 2022 shall be disposed off as common questions of law are involved therein. Vide above said Appeals, both the parties i.e. Dealers had challenged the impugned order passed by the District Commission, being illegal and arbitrary in the eyes of law. However, for reference the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No. 863 of 2022.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Gobind Transport in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant being in the business of Transport had purchased Truck Trailer Model No. 5528T, manufactured by Bharat Benz on 20.09.2019 from OP No.1 i.e. Dealer of OP No.3. Said vehicle was having Engine No.400953D0078211, Chassis No. MEC2817CMJP0770488, which was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. He had financed the said vehicle from HDFC Bank, Rupnagar and had paid through monthly installment of Rs.70,000/-.
First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 4
4. On 08.09.2020, said Truck Trailer had met with an accident and the Complainant approached OP No.2 for repair. Said truck remained with OP No.2 for repair from 10.09.2020 till 29.10.2020. OP No.2 had not repaired the said truck properly and the same was tilted on the right side. On the asking of OP No.2, the Complainant had approached another Dealer i.e. OP No.1 for the repair of the truck. OP No.1 had kept the truck for repair from 21.11.2020 till 01.12.2020 but failed to rectify the defect of the Truck Trailor. OP No.1 had informed him that chassis of the truck was required to be changed and intimation in this regard was given to Head Office of the Company and approval for the same was awaited. The problem of the truck had neither been rectified by OP No.1 nor by OP No.2. The Complainant had suffered financially on account of loss of business. As the truck had remained in the Dealers Workshop and had faced physical harassment at the hands of the OPs and prayed for compensation on this account.
4A. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to resolve the problem of the truck by changing the chassis with the new one, by paying the compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lakh on account of negligence of the OPs, loss of business and physical harassment suffered and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 12% p.a.
5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, OP No. 2 had not appeared and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.08.2021. The Appellants/OP No.1 had filed its written statement by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complainant had purchased the truck for commercial use for earning profit, as such, did not fall under the definition of 'consumer'. There was no cause of action with the First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 5 Complainant to file the Complaint. The Complainant had failed to produce on record any evidence, regarding any kind of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. On merits, it was pleaded that the Complainant had got repaired the truck in question from OP No.2 Dealership of Manufacturer (OP No.3) and not from the OP No.1. The allegations of the Complainant that the vehicle had not been repaired properly and titled on right side, related to the OP No.2, who had done the repairs of the vehicle. If the Complainant was not satisfied with the repair of OP No.2, he could lodge the Complaint against it i.e. OP No.2 but the Complainant had wrongly impleaded OP No.1 also as party in the Complaint. The Complainant had no cause of action to file the Complaint against OP No.1. It was prayed that the Complaint against OP No.1 be dismissed, being meritless.
6. OP No. 3 in its written statement had taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant had purchased the truck for commercial use as he had run the Transport Company at large scale. The Complainant had nowhere stated in his Complaint that he had earned livelihood by running the truck. He had admitted that he had engaged Driver to run the vehicle in question. Therefore, the Complainant did not fall within the definition of 'consumer'.
7. OP No.4-Insurance Company in its written reply had pleaded that the Complainant had to give strict proof that the vehicle had been insured with it.
8. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the Opposite Parties as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 6 22.08.2022. The relevant portion of the said order as mentioned in Para-8 is reproduced as under:
"8. In view of our above discussion, we feel that the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for by him. The OP No.1 & 2 are directed to resolve the issue of the complainant as prayed by him. They further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of business along with compensation Rs.35,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment with Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to comply with the said order within 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order..."
9. The aforesaid order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2 i.e. Dealers by way of filing the different Appeals by raising a number of arguments.
10. There was delay of 42 days in filing the First Appeal No. 1012 of 2022. M.A. No. 1583 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, which was supported by an affidavit. The delay of 42 days in filing the Appeal, was condoned vide order dated 25.11.2022.
11. Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant-M/s Globe CV Pvt. Ltd. in F.A. No. 863 of 2022 has argued that the Complainant Company had run big transport business and was having so many Trucks, therefore, does not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' under the CP Act. The Complainant had got repaired his truck from Dhingara Trucking at Karnal i.e. OP No.2 but was not satisfied with the repair as chassis of the vehicle was not set in level. If the Complainant had any grievance regarding that repair, then he could had lodged the Complaint only against OP No.2. No repair had been provided by OP No.1 and the Complainant had not levelled single allegation of deficiency in repair against OP No.1. As the vehicle of the Complainant had been First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 7 repaired under accidental repair, so chassis cannot be replaced under warranty. Before the accidental repair, the Complainant had never alleged that the chassis of the truck was defective. As chassis had not been repaired by OP No.1, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on its part. From the Service History of the vehicle, it is clear that the vehicle is still in working condition and had run more than 2 lakh kilometers. Therefore, the amount awarded on account of loss of business was illegal and unjustified in the present circumstances. The District Commission against the demand of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, on its own had awarded Rs.15,000/-. District Commission had wrongly and illegally fastened the liability upon OP No.1, whereas there was no deficiency in service on its part. It was prayed that the impugned order being illegal and arbitrary in nature, be set-aside against it.
12. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellant-M/s Dhingra Trucking Pvt. Ltd. in F.A. No. 1012 of 2022 has argued that no proper service was provided by this OP. The present Appellant was wrongly and illegally proceeded against ex-parte. There was no evidence on record to prove that service was effected upon the Appellant. He further argued that the Complainant had used the Truck for commercial purposes, to earn profit by hiring Driver and was not falling within the definition of 'Consumer' under the CP Act. He was a large scale transporter having lots of trucks with it. Nowhere in the Complaint the Complainant had clarified that he had run the business to earn his livelihood and was dependent only on the income of this Truck, having no other source of income. The Appellant had done only accidental repair and no permission was granted by the Complainant to repair the chassis, hence, no charges were paid by the Complainant for the said repair. As the Appellant was proceeded ex-parte, hence, the present Appellant could not First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 8 produce its evidence before the District Commission. The District Commission without considering the fact that the allegations of the Complainant were false and baseless, had fastened the liability upon the Appellant-Dhingra Trucking Pvt. Ltd., whereas there was no deficiency on its part. It was prayed that the impugned order being illegal and arbitrary may kindly be set-aside.
13. On the other hand, Sh. Jatinder Singh Mundi, Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has submitted his written arguments but did not appear at the time of arguments. The Complainant had approached the OP No.2 for accidental repairs of the truck in question. Said Dealer had not properly repaired the truck. After repair of the chassis, it was tilted on the right side, which clearly showed from the photographs as well as water level test. Said problem was not rectified by both Dealers of the Manufacturer i.e. OPs No.1&2 inspite of number of visits. The District Commission had rightly appreciated the evidence produced by the Complainant in support of his averments, which clearly had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the both Appellants. The District Commission had rightly fastened the liability upon the OPs No.1&2, but inadequate amount had been awarded on account of loss of business.
14. We have heard the oral arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted by the parties and all the relevant documents available on the file. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.
15. The Complainant was the owner of Truck Trailer, having Engine No. 400953D0078211, Chassis No. MEC2817CMJP0770488. On 08.09.2020, said Truck Trailer met with an accident and the Complainant First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 9 had approached OP No.2 for repair. Said truck was not properly repaired by OP No.2 and the same was tilted on the right side. Then on the asking of OP No.2, the Complainant had approached another Dealer i.e. OP No.1 for the repair of the truck but they had also failed to rectify the defect of the Truck Trailor. With the said grouse, the Complainant had approached the District Commission, which had fastened the liability upon OP Nos. 1&2, being deficient in service.
16. Dissatisfied with the said directions, the Appellants/OPs No.1&2 had filed the Appeals, challenging the same on the ground that the District Commission had not considered their objections that the Complainant was not falling within the definition of 'Consumer' as the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. It was not mentioned in the Complaint anywhere that the Complainant had used the vehicle to earn his livelihood and he was big transporter having number of vehicles.
17. It is settled law that if any party had taken a specific objection with regard to the claim of the other party, it is necessary for the judicial authority to examine the said objection. The first objection taken by the Appellants is that the Truck Tralla was purchased by the Complainant for using in Transport Business and was being run under the name and style of Gobind Transport, therefore, the vehicle in question had been used in commercial activity. The Complainant in his Complaint nowhere had stated that it was the sole source of his income for earning livelihood by way of self-employment. In the Consumer Protection Act, under the definition of 'Consumer', the person who buys any goods for commercial purpose/transaction was specifically barred from the definition of 'Consumer'. It is necessary requirement of the Act to fall under the definition of 'Consumer'. One has to prove that he is running the business by way of self-employment. The Complaint of the Complainant had First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 10 specifically stated that he was in the business of transport and had employed experienced Driver to run the Truck, therefore, it is clear that the Complainant had employed a number of workers/persons to run his transport business and nowhere it is mentioned that said Truck was used for earning his livelihood. The word 'commercial purpose' was thoroughly interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported as "Laxmi Engineering Works V/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute", II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) in which it was observed (relevant extract) as under:-
"The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods 'with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit' he will not be a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act..."
18. The word 'commercial purpose' was also considered by the Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment reported as "Harsolia Motors V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.", 2005 CTJ 141 (CP) (NCDRC) by examining the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Work's case (supra). The Hon'ble National Commission (relevant extract) held as under:-
"25. Further, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words 'for any commercial purpose' it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose."
19. It was also held by the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. No. 2430 of 2012 titled as "Kishore Ramchandra Bhide Vs. Habitat India Agro Development Pvt Ltd & Ors" decided on 06.11.2012 that :-
"where a person purchases goods "with a view of using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit", he will not be a 'consumer', within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (i) of the Act."First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 11
20. As it is clear that the Complainant had run the business of transport and had not mentioned anywhere regarding earning for his livelihood, which comes within the definition of 'Commercial' and not 'Consumer'. Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant does not fall under the definition of 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(7) of the CP Act, 2019. Therefore, in the first instance, the Complainant is not successful to cross the hurdle of definition of the 'Consumer'. However, if for the sake of brevity, we consider the allegations of the Complainant that the OPs had not repaired the chassis of the Truck properly, to prove the said allegations the Complainant had relied upon some photographs (Exs.C-15 to C-19) as well as one report given by Gurkirpal Singh Marwaha, who has stated to be Mechanical Engineer.
21. Perusal of the impugned order revealed that the District Commission while dealing with the allegations of the Complainant and found the Appellants deficient in service, before awarding the compensation had observed in para No.5 (mentioned twice) as under:-
"5. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had purchased the truck in question from the OP No.1 but unfortunately, the truck in question met with an accident. After accident, the complainant approached the OP2 for repair the same but the OP not resolve the issue. In support of his evidence, the complainant has tendered so many documents like estimate bill, permit, national permit, RC, permit, insurance, driving license of the driver, original report by engineer, certificate of engineer and other documents. The complainant placed on record the job sheets, vide which the complainant visited many times to repair the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the photographs of water leveling of the vehicle in question, which clearly shows that the chassis of the truck is in bending condition. He also placed on record the detailed report of B-tech engineer, in this report, the engineer stated that "it was found that the chassis of the vehicle were bended towards left side clearly showing the same as consequences of accident."First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 12
22. The basis of allowing the Complaint was some photographs tendered by the Complainant as well as one report (Ex. C-24) submitted by Gurkirpal Singh Marwaha. The contents of the said report are as under:-
"Gurkirpal Singh Marwaha Mechanical Engineer # 57, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh Subject:- Report regarding vehicle no. PB-65AW4274 Heavy duty Truck That I have myself inspected vehicle no. PB-65AW 4274 Heavy duty Truck Trailer Model 5528T, having engine No. 400953D0078211, Chassis No. MEC2817CMJP077048 on 8-3-2021 and took photographs of the vehicle with the help of photographer. After inspection of the vehicle it was found that the chassis of the vehicle were bended towards left side clearly showing the same as consequences of accident. Thereafter I also conducted water leveling test which depicted the vehicle bended down on the left side. The vehicle is bended down on the left side then the same can adversely affect the excel of the vehicle as well as bumpy rides even on smooth surfaces, uneven tire treads, vehicle pulling to right or left, shaking of steering wheel, fighting of driver to keep the steering straight.
Sd/-
Gurkirpal Singh Marwaha Mechanical Engineer Contact No.:-
23. On the other hand to contradict the allegations of the Complainant, the OPs had annexed the Service History of the vehicle in question upto 25.04.2022 (Annexure A-6) and also upto 03.04.2025, the vehicle had completed 244707 KMs. The Complainant had stated that after repair of the vehicle by OP No.2 (not repaired properly), he had received the vehicle on 29.10.2020. To examine the allegations of the Complainant that whether he had informed/lodged the Complaint with the OPs that the chassis of the vehicle was not properly repaired, we have perused the Vehicle Service History. In the said history, in Job Card dated 12.10.2020, it was mentioned that 'accidental repair', Dealer Name & City 'Dhingra Trucking Private, Karnal'. Therefore, it is clear that after accident the First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 13 vehicle had been repaired by OP No.2. However, thereafter the vehicle on number of times visited OP No.1 Dealership for repair i.e. on 10.11.2020, 23.11.2020, 01.06.2021, 17.06.2021, 26.07.2021, 14.09.2021, 18.10.2021, 245.04.2022, 20.09.2022, 30.01.2023, 12.10.2023, 28.10.2023, 12.12.2023 and 03.04.2025 but in none of the visit history, the Complainant had lodged the Complaint regarding titled chassis of the vehicle on the right side. Therefore, it was clear that after repair the Complainant had neither lodged the Complaint of defaulted repair with the Dealers nor with the Manufacturer that his problem had not been rectified by their Dealers. The Complainant being a big transporter had full knowledge how to act against his grievances.
24. Perusal of the Report of Gurkirpal Singh Marwaha, it also creates doubt because firstly he in his report had said that the vehicle was bended towards left side, whereas on perusal of the Complaint and Legal Notice clearly reveals that the Truck was tilted/unbalanced towards the right side. Therefore, the report of the said Engineer did not prove the allegations of the Complainant. Also perusal of the Report shows that the said Engineer had not mentioned as to on whose directions, he had inspected the vehicle. He had also not disclosed his qualification in his report. He had only mentioned that he was Mechanical Engineer but had neither mentioned his qualification/Degree in his report nor explained about the experience he gained in the field of Vehicle Inspection and where he had worked. Therefore, in these circumstances blindly relying upon this report is not acceptable. The photographs, however coloured, but had not explained or shown the ratio of water difference, therefore, we are unable to rely upon these photographs. Also the said photographs did not clarify about which chassis part of the truck had been repaired by OP No.2 and how much difference/defect was noticed. In the absence of First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 14 authenticate report as well as clear evidence, fixing the liability of OPs No.1&2 is not correct.
25. Also during the arguments on 16.10.2025, it was specifically asked from Respondent No.1 as to whether the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose or for earning livelihood by way of self employment and also as to whether the truck could run for such a long distance with the alleged tilted chassis. To this query, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 had sought time to produce expert opinion but had failed to produce any such evidence on record in support of his case. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 in this Commission had failed to prove his allegation as genuine one.
26. The vehicle had run almost 2 lakh kilometers after accidental repair then under such circumstances, it cannot be assumed that the alleged defect, if any, could be to that extent, which had troubled the functioning/running of the vehicle. Certainly after running lakhs of Kilometers the performance of the vehicle had downgraded to some extent. However, running of the vehicle for more than 2 lakh kilometers clearly shows that the vehicle had been regularly used by the Complainant from 2019 till 2025.
27. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid observations, documents available on the file and the aforesaid judgments of the Superior Courts, we find force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the Appellants of F.A. No. 863 of 2022 and F.A. No. 1012 of 2022 that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as well as that after repairing the vehicle from accidental repairs, the vehicle remained fully functional. The data produced on record clearly verify the fact that the vehicle remained running continuously, so we are unable to accept the contention that the vehicle faced any problem after repairs. The District Commission without giving any justification had awarded the amount on account of loss of First Appeal No. 863 of 2022 15 business, compensation. Litigation expenses were granted beyond the demand of the Complainant, hence, the impugned order is not in conformity with the evidence on record. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the District Commission. Accordingly, both the Appeals i.e. F.A. No. 863 of 2022 and F.A. No. 1012 of 2022 are allowed and the impugned order dated 22.08.2022, being wrong, illegal and arbitrary, is set-aside. Consequently, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed for the reasons referred above. No order as to costs.
28. Since the main cases have been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off.
29. The Appellant in F.A. No. 863 of 2022 had deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellant-M/s Globe CV Pvt. Ltd., as per practice.
30. The Appellant in F.A. No. 1012 of 2022 had deposited a sum of Rs.62,500/- at the time of filing of the Appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the Appellant-Dhingra Trucking Private Limited, as per practice.
31. The Appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER January 07, 2026.
as