PUNJAB MOTORS vs RAJA SINGH

VIDE this order, two Appeal Nos. 47 and 48 of 1997 are being disposed of as having been filed by the opposite parties against the order dated December 16, 1996 passed by District Forum, Ropar on the complaint filed by Raja Singh. The District Forum disposed of the complaint with the direction to the opposite parties, the dealer and the manufacturer of cars as under :

THE dealer was directed to deliver contractual vehicle to the complainant by December 30, 1996 alongwith compensation of Rs. 1,000/-. THE complainant was held entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the full price paid i.e. Rs. 3,01,935/- + Rs. 25,000/- earlier paid as advance w.e.f. September 1,1996 till the date of delivery of the vehicle. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- as costs of proceedings was also allowed to the complainant. Appeal No. 47 has been filed by Punjab Motors, Kurali, the dealer whereas Appeal No. 48 has been filed by the Tata Engineering and Locomotives Company Limited, the manufacturer. The prayer in both the appeals is for setting aside of the order of the District Forum.

Raja Singh, the complainant had earlier booked a vehicle Tata Sumo with Punjab Motors, Kurali. Seniority No. P.N. 2265 was allocated to him. This was in March, 1996. The complainant Raja Singh being an Ex-MLA approached the manufacturer for allotment of vehicle on priority basis. His request was accepted that the manufacturer sanctioned a Tata Sumo to him out of turn priority basis vide letter dated July 10, 1996 and that he should make full payment at least one month prior to delivery of the vehicle. In response to the aforesaid, the complainant deposited the requisite amount with the dealer towards the price of the vehicle. The vehicle having not been supplied, on September 13,1996 he approached the District Forum. Afterwards on September 30, 1996, he was asked to take delivery. In the meantime there was rise in the excise duty and the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 26,402/- more. The District Forum after getting reply and evidence from both the parties passed the impugned order that excessive price could not be claimed from the complainant and directed payment of interest on the amount as stated above alongwith compensation and costs.

THE foremost question argued on behalf of the appellant is that the complainant in the facts of the present case could not be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act entitled to file the complaint. He was given favour by making allotment of the vehicle by the manufacturer out of turn. He was merely having a status of prospective customer as the sale of vehicle had not taken place when District Forum was approached. Moreover there was no defect in the vehicle that any relief could be granted to him. It is in this context that it has further been argued that present is not a case of hiring services for consideration by the complainant in the matter of getting special quota vehicle that it could be a consumer dispute of which cognizance could be had by the District Forum. THEre is force in this contention. A prospective buyer of goods cannot be a consumer. THE word consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as under : "consumer" means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not includes a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person."

A bare perusal of the provision aforesaid would show that in the case of purchase of goods, the purchaser would be a consumer and in the case of hiring services for consideration, the hirer would be a consumer. The beneficiary of contract of hiring services would also be a consumer. Upto the stage of booking made by the complainant Raja Singh with Punjab Motors is concerned, the only right which he possessed was consideration of his case alongwith others who likewise booked the vehicles and if the seniority had been jumped, it could be held that the complainant Raja Singh had hired the services of Punjab Motors by booking the vehicle and that there was deficiency in rendering service. The position is entirely different when the manufacturer of the vehicle allowed out of turn vehicle to him, in other words an offer to him to purchase the vehicle out of turn of making payment of the entire price. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant had hired the services of the manufacturer for supplying of the motor vehicle. Hence the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer as defined and entitled to move the complaint. As a prospective customer, no relief could be granted to him.

IN view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary to refer to other pleadings or disputed questions raised in the case. We have to leave complainant to seek other relief, if any, available to him under the law in ordinary Civil Court since FORA under the Consumer Protection Act cannot entertain the complaint. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. Appeals allowed.