State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Golam Rasul Halder vs Tata Motors Ltd. on 11 December, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/924/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/07/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/197/2013 of District Howrah) 1. Golam Rasul Halder S/o Abdul Munnaf Halder, Vill. - Alipukur, P.S. - Uluberia, Dist. - Howrah. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Tata Motors Ltd. Regional office commercial vehicle business unit Rene Tower, 3rd Floor, 1842, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107. 2. Bhandari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Argori NH-6, near Jalan Gate No.3, P.O. - Andul Mouri, P.S. - Sankrail, Dist. - Howrah. 3. The Manager, UBI Bagnan Branch, Vill., P.O. & P.S. - Bagnan, Howrah, Pin -711 103. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay Mr. Souvik Chatterjee Mrs. Tanusree Chatterjee , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr.Asutosh Das,, Advocate Mr. Sasanka kumar Mondal., Advocate ORDER 11.12.2015 DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has arisen out of order dated 28.7.2014 in C.C. No. 197/2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (In short, District Forum), the Appellant being the Complainant therein. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the case being non- maintainable.
Case of the Complainant is that he carries on business of plying vehicle for commercial purpose and earned reputation, and for enlargement of his said business he wanted to purchase one mini bus for plying it for commercial purpose in the route sanctioned for Route No. 41, Boalia to Madhabpur. Accordingly, he bought one mini bus of latest 712 B.S. Model from the OP No. 1 at the behest of the OP No. 2, which was delivered on 23.02.2012 at a total consideration of Rs.8, 26,607/-, with finance from the OP No. 3.After purchase he faced a lot of trouble to run the vehicle and it was sent to the authorized dealer of the OP No. 1 and it was found that it has mechanical trouble. But, the vehicle while plying on the road suffered a lot of mechanical problems like unusual / high tyre wear, starting trouble, wheels became hot, brake shoe was damaged, toe rod became loose, water pump damaged after 18000 Kms, chetak buster damaged with 34000 Kms. Accordingly, he sent an Advocate's letter on 15.4.2013 to the OP No. 1, who bucked the responsibility. From the service centre of the OP No. 1, it was found that OP No. 1 has cheated him by giving BS III 709 parts in the BS IV 712, which was certified by the authorized service centre of the OP No. 1, namely, Kauntia Motor Works Private Limited. As parts of BS IV 709 have been used in BS IV 712 causing serious damage to the vehicle and he could not run the vehicle properly, so the case.
Case of the OP No. 1 is that the complaint is not maintainable, which is vague, baseless and malafide. The misconceived baseless allegations of manufacturing defect have been made without relying on any expert report and the deficiency in service without any documentary evidence. Further, the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the vehicle has been used for commercial activities to generate profit which has covered more than 60512 Kms as on 17.6.2013, i.e., within a mere span of approx. 16 months, which shows extensive use of the vehicle. So, the complaint be dismissed against the OP No. 1.
Case of the OP No. 2 is that it sold the vehicle to the complainant after thorough inspection. The contentions regarding model and the Complainant being a consumer are denied. It has not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint petition is not maintainable in law as well as in fact, which has been made with a motive to harass the OPs for illegal gain. So, the case be dismissed against the OP No. 2.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to call for an intervention from the appellate forum.
Decision with reasons:
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant is doing transport business for his livelihood. Accordingly, the impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Ld. District Forum.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 has submitted that there is many flaws in the case of the Complainant, which does not entitle him to be treated as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the specific case of the Complainant case in the petition of complaint that he is in the business of plying vehicle for commercial purpose having reputation and to strengthen his business, he purchased this Mini Bus, which is for commercial purpose. Accordingly, there is no escape for the Complainant to go beyond his pleading in the matter. Further, for operating a Mini Bus, many workers are required and employed and not run by the Complainant himself. So, there is no merit in the present appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that both Kauntia Motor Works Private Limited and Bhandari Motors Private Limited, in which workshops the vehicle was tested have not been made the party in the case. The impugned order is a proper reflection of the facts and situation, which should be upheld.
As held by the Ld. District Forum, it is amply found that the Complainant is engaged in commercial venture for which he can not be termed as a consumer in the strict sense in view of the provisions in this respect in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No proper case has been made out that the business of the Complainant is run for self-employment by himself for his livelihood. Accordingly, there is no merit in the complaint, which has been duly rejected by the Ld. District Forum. As such, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.
[HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER