N. AKMALKHAN vs Hindustan Motors Ltd.

THE complainant purchased an Ambassador car from the opposite parties. According to him, the opposite parties assured that they would apply for necessary registration, but they have failed to do so with the result the complainant has been put to loss and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which has claimed compensation under various heads.

THE 4th and the 5th opposite parties resisted the complaint on various grounds, the main ground being that the purchase was made for commercial purpose and, therefore, the Consumer Forum will not have jurisdiction. The lower Forum accepted the defence and dismissed the complaint. Hence the present appeal by the complainant.

The complainant has stated that he has purchased the Ambassador car for his self-employment to ply the vehicle by himself for hire. But from the records produced in this case, we find that the complainant is running a Tourist Taxi Agency in the name of "Benazir Travels". The complainant''s request for registration was refused by the Regional Transport Office on the ground that the vehicle had not obtained the design approval for the model from the State Transport Authority. But we need not be concerned with that aspect since the disposal by the lower Forum is on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer. Whether it has been established by the complainant that he purchased the vehicle for running it as a tourist cab, is what we have to see. From the records produced, we find that the complainant is running a Travel Agency by name Benazir Travels. The visiting card is also produced by the opposite party which shows that the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of running it as a tourist taxi and the complainant is running it as tourist taxi under the name and style of "Benazir Travels". The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to obtain a fancy number. It is really surprising that a person who wants to make his livelihood by plying the vehicle, should pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ more for getting a fancy number. The very fact that he has deposited the same and got a fancy number viz., TN 33-Q-9999 would show that it has been purchased as a tourist taxi for a Travels. Normally, a fancy number is sought for either by person having cars for their own purpose or by persons running a Travel Agency so that it will be a catchy number and also easy to remember. Therefore, it is clear that the vehicle has been only purchased to form part of Benazir Travels as a tourist taxi. As we have already pointed out, the visiting card of Benazir Travels has already been produced and marked as Ex. B-13. It is shown with the address "No. 19/5, Gandhij Road, Central Theatre Complex, Erode-638 001" and also mentions about two Vans and an Ambassador car with registration number TN-33-Q-9999. Thus it is clear that the complainant has been running a tourist service under the name and style "Benazir Travels" for which purpose the car in question was purchased. Therefore, the purchase has been made only for commercial purpose. When the purchase is made for commercial purpose, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be made applicable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel in the lower Forum would only show that they were cases where the purchase was made personally by the person for eking out his livelihood. Under Section 2(1)(d), such services availed of for a consideration does not include a person who avails of such services for commercial purpose. This has been included by way of amendment in the year 2003. Therefore, the law as prevailing as on the date has to be considered. Hence, it would be clear that the purchase having been made for commercial purpose for running a profession as a Tourist Travel operator, the complainant cannot come under the category of "consumer".

EVEN otherwise, the complaint has to be dismissed with costs because there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. EVEN according to the complainant, the registration could not be done because of the fact that the particular model did not have the approval of the State Government. The opposite parties cannot be held responsible for an act of State, for, they have no control over the same. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the manufacturers. They have nothing to do with the registration. If at all, it should be against the opposite parties 4 and 5 who can be said to have something to do with the registration of the vehicle. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle stating clearly that the vehicle should be used only after registration, fixation of number plates and payment of motor vehicle tax as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and that he shall observe all the rules scrupulously and if he failed to do so, the opposite parties are absolved of the risk and consequences. Therefore, the complainant was aware of all these facts at the time he took delivery and yet he had taken delivery. The registration was refused for the reason that the model was not approved. There is no undertaking by the opposite parties that they would somehow obtain the registration. It is only after October, 1997 the approval has been granted. But the complaint was laid in May, 1997. Therefore, we find that it is not a case where the complainant can haul up the opposite parties for deficiency in service when there is no deficiency in service or failure to do their obligation on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the complaint must fail. Hence, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.