National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parampal Singh vs Universal Motors & Anr. on 14 March, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1377 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 19/01/2017 in Appeal No. 881/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. PARAMPAL SINGH S/O SH.JASPAL SINGH DHILLON, DIRECTOR, HOTEL KHYBER CONTINENTAL PVT. LTD., 209-A QUEENS ROAD AMRITSAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNIVERSAL MOTORS & ANR. THROUGH ITS PROP/PARTNER/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER NEAR CANAL,G.T ROAD, AMRITSAR PUNJAB 2. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD, INDIA (REGISTERED OFFICE( THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING OFFICER, DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL GATE WARD BUILDING,APOLO BUNDER, MUMBAI - 4000001 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : UNIVERSAL MOTORS & ANR.
Dated : 14 Mar 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant allegedly purchased a Mahindra & Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle for his personal use from the account of his father's hotel, his father being a Director of the said hotel. The aforesaid vehicle was allegedly suffering from latent manufacturing defects. The complainant therefore approached the concerned district Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party which took a preliminary objection that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer as the vehicle was purchased in the name of Hotel Khyber Continental Pvt. Ltd., which is a commercial establishment.
3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint the respondent Mahindra & Mahindra approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 19.1.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was purchased in the name of the company and not in the name of an individual. The name of the purchaser as per the invoice was Hotel Khyber Continental Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant / petitioner is that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the funds of the company in which his father was a Director. It is thus an admitted position that the sale consideration for the purchase of the vehicle was paid by the company and not by the complainant. Thus, not only the invoice was in the name of the company even the sale consideration for purchasing the vehicle was paid by it.
5. Admittedly, there is no Board Resolution passed by Hotel Khyber Continental Pvt. Ltd., resolving to purchase the aforesaid vehicle for the personal use of the complainant. Admittedly, there is no Board Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company resolving to allow the complainant to use the aforesaid vehicle for his personal purposes. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the complainant cannot be accepted since it appears to be a made up plea taken only with a view to bring the cause within the purview of the Consumer Forum. In the absence of a Board Resolution, permitting the complainant to use the aforesaid vehicle for his personal purposes, the complainant can even not said to be a beneficiary of the goods within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Since the complainant / petitioner is not a consumer of the respondents, it had no locus-standi to maintain the consumer complaint. The order passed by the State Commission therefore does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.
It is however, made clear that dismissal of the revision petition shall not come in the way of the company namely Hotel Khyber Continental Pvt. Ltd., availing such remedy against the respondent, as may be open to them in law.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER