Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.   In their written version, filed by Opposite Party No.1, it was pleaded that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law, and, as such, not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complainant, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the bus was purchased by him, for commercial purpose, for earning huge profits. It was admitted that the bus was purchased by the complainant, for a consideration of Rs.4,85,865/- less Rs.2000/- as discount, from Opposite Party No.1. It was also admitted that the body of the bus was got manufactured from Govind Body Builders, District Sangrur, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs. It was denied that the bus was consuming more diesel and mobil oil, than required. It was stated that Opposite Party No.1, never gave an undertaking that the bus, in question, will give an average of 3 kms per litre of diesel, in the hilly areas. It was further stated that various factors like driving habits, adequate air pressure in tyres, proper maintenance, obtaining service at regular intervals, load over the vehicle, application of brakes, halts to carry passenger/at red lights, utilization of the clutch, quality of fuel etc., play a dominant role to get optimum average. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had carried a road test of the vehicle, after coverage of 13292 kms, as per report dated 02.09.1999. During the said road test, it was found that the vehicle consumed mobil oil to the extent of 0.60 ltrs, for 221 kms. There was no external oil leakage. The air cleaner and air breather were also found clean. The engine oil and coolant were found to be constant, as per the recommendations. No oil entry was found from ports. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 dismantled the cylinder head of the bus, and found that the bore wear was within limits. Piston stamps size was 96.88. It was further stated that during the test drive, on 02.09.1999, the condition of the bus was found to be good. It was further stated that the aforesaid report dated 02.09.1999, clearly proved that the bus was neither giving less average, nor consuming more mobil oil. It was further stated that no expert report was produced by the complainant, to prove that the bus suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. It was further stated that the complainant, voluntarily and without any pressure, submitted his affidavit Annexure R1/1 dated 14.09.1999 (at page 71 of the file), as also satisfactory note of the same date, to the effect that the vehicle had been repaired to his entire satisfaction and the dispute stood settled. It was denied that his signatures were obtained, under pressure. It was further stated that since, the bus did not suffer from any inherent manufacturing defects, and the minor defects, which were found therein, were duly attended to, from time to time, and rectified, it was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

11.   Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, in their written version, pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the bus was purchased by him, for commercial purpose, for earning huge profits. It was stated that the cars and vehicles manufactured by them, passed through stringent quality checks, and road trials, before the start of actual production. It was further stated that the same are marketed only after the approval of the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, were having excellent duly authorized service centres like Opposite Party No.1 and the customers of all the commercial vehicles, manufactured by them, were availing of services, through a large network of authorized dealers and Tata Authorized Service Stations (TASS). It was denied that the average of the bus was less, whereas the consumption of diesel and mobil oil was more, as complained by the complainant. It was denied that the bus suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. It was further stated that the complainant, voluntarily and without any pressure, submitted his affidavit Annexure R1/1 dated 14.09.1999, as also satisfactory note of the same date, to the effect, that the vehicle had been repaired to his entire satisfaction and the dispute stood settled. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

21.   In Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. Milan Dutta, IV (2012) CPJ 55 (NC), decided on 21.08.2012, a mini truck was purchased by the complainant. It had a commercial registration and was insured under a Commercial Package Policy. It was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the complainant was having only one mini truck, though he had engaged a driver to ply the same, yet for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Usha Vohra, IV (2009) CPJ 305 (NC), the complainant was allotted a booth in Sector 10, Panchkula, on 15.10.1991, for which she had paid a total consideration of Rs.8,29,354.50, till 31.12.1996. There was no averment, in the complaint, that the same was purchased by the complainant, for earning her livelihood, by way of self employment. The complaint was decided, in favour of the complainant, by the District Forum, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the excess amount charged, and an appeal was preferred, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a Revision Petition was filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. During the course of Revision Petition, an argument was advanced, that since the complainant was allotted booth, which was obviously for commercial purpose, she did not fall within the definition of a consumer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in the aforesaid case, held that the mere fact that the respondent/complainant, had been allotted a booth site, no conclusive finding, could be recorded about the same (booth) having been allotted for commercial consideration, and not for earning livelihood, as that would require a lot of consideration to unsuit her. In Remington Rand of India Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Pioneer Typewriter Co. I (1996) CPJ 317 (NC), a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complainant purchased a Paper Copier Machine, from the Opposite Party, which did not give satisfactory service. No averment, was made, in the complaint, that the Paper Copier Machine, had been purchased by the complainant, for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. Ultimately, the machine became defective, and the complaint for replacement of the same, was filed. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, decided the complaint, in favour of the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/appellant, which took up the plea, that the complainant/respondent, did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as the machine was purchased by it, for running the business, on a large scale, for earning huge profits. In these circumstances, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the firm of the complainant, was indeed a small unit, and just because it was a partnership firm, it could not be concluded that it was engaged, in a large scale commercial activity, for earning huge profits. It was further held that since loan was obtained by the complainant/respondent, from the Bank, for purchasing the machine, which fact, in itself, clearly proved that the complainant was to run a small venture, to earn its livelihood, by way of self employment. In Techno Mukund Constructions Vs. Mercedes Benz India Limited & Anr., 2011 (2) CLT, 362, a motor car was purchased by the Firm, for the use of its Managing Partner, for his going and coming to his place of work and home, and it was for his use for the activities of the Firm. A plea was raised, by the Opposite Parties, that the car was sold by them, to the complainant, which was a commercial Company, and it was being used for a commercial purpose, and, as such, it did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, however, held that the buyers of goods or services for self consumption, in economic activities, in which they are engaged, would be consumers, as defined by the Act. It was further held that the purchase of car, in question, by the complainant, could not be held to be a case of purchase for commercial purpose. In Dr. Santosh Kumar Khanna Vs. Wipro Ge Medical System Ltd., and Ors., IV (2005) CPJ 666, a case decided by Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, the complainant, being a retired Senior Physician, purchased machinery for self-employment and to effectively diagnose disease. The machine became defective and he filed a consumer complaint. An objection was taken by the Opposite Parties, that the same had been purchased by the complainant, for commercial purpose, and, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d), of the Act. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun, however, held that the commercial purpose was not involved and the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer. In Halda Office Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, II (2012) CPJ 359 (NC), chairs were purchased for the use of students, in educational institution. There was no evidence that the said chairs were purchased, on behalf of the institution, for commercial purpose. Some of the chairs were got replaced, as the same were defective. Under these circumstances, it was held that it could not be said that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. In Shind Engineering Industries Vs. J.S. Birdi & Sons, III (2002) CPJ 277 (NC), machines were purchased by the complainant, which were being used for earning livelihood, by way of self employment. During the warranty period, the machines were not functioning satisfactorily. The machines were, ultimately, got repaired. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the complainant was not a consumer, though it was stated that the machines were being operated, by the complainant, and his son and they did not employ any other staff. In the First Appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, it was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that the machines were being used by the complainant, for his self employment, and, as such, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer. In Jindal Oil and Ginning Factory Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation (2009)CPJ26(Pb), a case decided by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, an application for allotment of an industrial plot, was made by the complainant, but no averment was made, in the complaint, by the complainant, that it was purchased with a view to earn livelihood, by way of self employment. However, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Chandigarh, held that when the industrial plot was not allotted to the complainant, it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a consumer.

22.   It is not the value of the goods, that matters, but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self-employment" make the intention of the Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought, must be used, by the buyer himself, by employing himself, for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasis that a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, to ply it, himself, on hire, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck, who purchases it, for plying it, as a public carrier, by himself, would be a consumer. A person, who purchases a lathe machine, or other machine, to operate it himself, for earning his livelihood, would be a consumer. In the above illustrations, if such a buyer, takes the assistance of one or two persons, to assist/help him, in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer. As against this, a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine, or other machine, to be plied or operated exclusively by another person, would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation, flowing from the expressions "used by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995(2) Consumer Law Today 474(SC). In M/s Cheema Engineering Services Vs Rajan Singh 1996(2)Consumer Law Today 397, a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the complainant, purchased a brick manufacturing machine, to operate himself, for earning his livelihood, by taking assistance of one or two persons. Under these circumstances, it was held that he fell within the definition of a consumer.