JOSEPH MATHEW THOMAS And CO. vs MARUTI UDYOG Limited

THE grievance of the appellant voiced before us for challenging the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP : 66/2002 is that without considering the pleadings particularly the pleadings regarding the existence of warranty, the Forum below passed the impugned order on the ground that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable to a vehicle which was purchased for commercial purpose. THE Counsel canvassing the correctness of finding recorded by the Forum below submitted that even if it is assumed without admitting for a moment that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose as the defects developed during the period of warranty, the respondents herein are liable to rectify the defects. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on the decision rendered by the National Commission in Jay Kay Puri Engineers and Another v. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. I (1998) CPJ 38 (NC).

THE facts of the case pleaded are to the effect that the vehicle (Maruti Waganor) was purchased by the complainant/appellant from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorised dealer of the first opposite party on 16.4.2001 and the vehicle developed trouble on 23/4. That fact was intimated to the respondents. Though the vehicle was repaired the defect was not cured completely. Again the vehicle started to show trouble on 6/5 and the fact of trouble developed again was reported to the opposite parties. Again they repaired the vehicle but not curing all the defects. THE vehicle again developed trouble on 30.5.2001 and the appellant reported the fact of developing trouble to the vehicle on the next day. Again vehicle was repaired and returned on 1/6. THE defects were not completely cured and the complainant''s case is that he had approached the Forum below for redressal of his grievance. THEre was warranty for a period of one year from the date of sale commencing from 16.4.2001 to 15.4.2002 and the vehicle developed trouble during the period of warranty. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was running warranty for a period of 36 months that commenced from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. There is force in the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Forum below erred grossly in dismissing the complaint at the threshold holding that the complaint is not entertainable on the ground that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose in view of the legal position laid down in the decision rendered by the National Commission cited above. We have to extract here observation made by the National Commission in the decision cited supra in support of the contention of the learned Counsel that even if the vehicle is purchased for commercial purpose and if there is a warranty and the defect developed to the vehicle during the period of warranty opposite parties (manufacturer and authorised dealer) are liable to rectify the defects, etc.

National Commission observed thus: "Mr. V.S. Joneja, the learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the State Commission, Tamilnadu at Madras only on two aspects. The submission on the question whether the complainant is a consumer or not is that the complainant is admittedly a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading and works for gain. The goods were purchased for commercial purposes, urges the Counsel, as it is an asset of the company for advancing its commercial activity. In our view, the State Commission rightly came to the conclusion that the Guest House is intended only for the residence of the Directors including the Managing Director and other Executives of the Company during their visits to Delhi. The installation of the air-conditioning system is only to provide comfort in the residence used by the officers of the company on their visits to Delhi, may be in connection with their officials and business activity. The Guest House is not used for any commercial purpose but only for the residence of the officers of the Company. The supply and installation of the air-conditioning system in the Guest House is not for the purpose of commercial activities of the complainant of the Brewery and Distillery at Madras, or the Glass Division at Pondicherry or Sugar Industry in Orissa or manufacture of Beer and I.M.F.L. at Ghaziabad. The air conditioning system in the Guest House has no close or direct nexus with the commercial activity carried on by the company. Apart from it the State Commission correctly stated the settled legal position that even where the goods were purchased for commercial purpose, if there is a warranty, as in this case, for its maintenance the purchaser becomes a consumer in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer of supplier during the warranty period. We uphold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act as well as Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act".

IN view of the clear legal position laid down by the National Commission in the decision cited supra we have to hold that the Forum below committed error in dismissing the complaint at the threshold for the reason found favour with it. The course open to us is to set aside the impugned order. The Forum below is directed to take back the complaint to file and to proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Forum below is not precluded from considering again the question of maintainablity if that question is raised before it by the O.Ps. Parties are to appear before the Forum below on 25/10. Counsel for the appellant submitted that no fresh notice need be issued to the appellant/complainant to appear before the Forum below on 25.10.2004. Appeal allowed.