Bimal Kumar vs Maruti Udyog Ltd.

THE complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') against the opposite parties on April 23, 1992 before the State Commission.

IT has been alleged in the complaint by the complainants that they had deposited the amount of Rs. 104670/- by way of bank draft with the opposite party No. 2 on 20.7.1990 for purchase of Maruti Van and at that time, the later had promised them to deliver the Maruti Van within ten days but the same was not delivered within the stipulated time. IT is the grievance of the complainants that they lost interest on the amount paid by them and their business suffered on account of non supply of Maruti Van and therefore, the service rendered by the dealer opposite party No. 2 was deficient. The complainants prayed that a direction be issued to the opposite parties to deliver Maruti Van to them or in the alternative to refund their amount alongwith Rs. 75,000/- for its non use and Rs. 45,000/- on account of interest. On notice being issued, the opposite parties stoutly resisted the complaint by controvert the allegations of the complainants. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason mentioned in para No.11 of the complaint. It has been stated : - "Para 11. that by not delivering the Maruti Van on Schedule the respondents have caused a loss of about Rs. 3000/- per month as the income to the complainants which was to be earned by them by way of plying Maruti Van as taxi. Not only this, the complainants have suffered huge loss as they have been forced to pay interest to the Bank towards the loan raised by them."

It is, thus an admitted case of the complainants that they wanted to purchase Maruti Van with an object to run it as a taxi and to earn profit. It is certainly a commercial purpose. In M/s. Oswal Fine Arts v. M/s. H.M.T., Madras (Original Petition No.l/88,decided on April 27,1989 by the National Commission) I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC). it was held that a person, who obtains goods for commercial purpose, is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression "Consumer" by the definition contained in Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. It was observed in Western India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sobhog Mal Meena & Others (First Appeal No. 12/ 89,decided on 8.11.1989 by the National Commission, New Delhi), that as per the definition of the expression "Consumer'''' contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. It would not include a person, who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. It was further observed that there cannot by any doubt that plying a taxi for hire is clearly a commercial purpose and the purchase of the vehicle, made specifically for being used as a taxi, is a purchase made for commercial purpose. We, therefore, hold that the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act as they wanted to purchase Maruti Van for commercial purpose, so they cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. We do not consider it necessary to go into the other questions which arise from the complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Complaint dismissed.