RASIKLAL MOHANLAL vs Apollo Tyres Limited

THE appellant is the original complainant who filed a complaint before the District Forum. It appears that the District Forum without issuing notice to the Respondents (Opponents) and without hearing them dismissed the complaint by passing an order under Exh. 1 on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer since he had purchased the tyres for commercial purpose. THE complainant being aggrieved by the order has filed this appeal.

THE appellant had purchased two truck tyres of Apollo make from M/s. Mahavir Tyres, the Respondent No. 3. THE same have been manufactured by the Respondent No. 1 M/s. Apollo Tyres. THEre is no dispute to that. THE tyres were purchased on 15.7.91 for the total amount of Rs. 14,200/-. THE bill for the same has been annexed. It appears that on 23.11.91 i.e. after a period of 4 months all of a sudden the tyre burst which might have resulted into stopping of his business and some other damages also. But at present we are not concerned with the same. The appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum and it appears that the learned Judge had himself raised the preliminary issue and decided the same and dismissed the complaint on a preliminary ground that the transaction being a commercial transaction the complainant was not a consumer and, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction. The District Forum has not entered into the merits of the complaint.

We have gone through the judgment of the District Forum. It is true that formerly the National Commission has taken a view that if a taxi is purchased for carrying passengers it would amount to commercial purpose. But subsequently that decision has been diluted by the Hon. National Commission in the case of K. Haridasan (appellant) v. M/s. M.O. Hasan Kuthoos Maricar (P) Ltd. reported in I (1991) CPJ 688 (NC)=1991 (2) CPR Page 113 The Hon''ble National Commission entertained the appeal of the taxi driver who had purchased an ambassador car for his livelihood. The Hon''ble Commission has further held that the State Commission should have awarded reasonable compensation to the complainant for his loss of earning during the said period and taking all the facts and circumstances the Hon''ble National Commission awarded Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for loss of earning. The question therefore arises is as to whether the article which was purchased was under the stream of commercial activity. The man has purchased the truck for his livelihood. He is not doing big business or giving the truck on rental basis or having transport company keeping several trucks for that purpose. The man purchased the article for his livelihood. Now it cannot be said to be a commercial purpose though there is always a commercial activity to some extent. For example, if an advocate purchases a car to go to the Court, in a sense it may not be said to be commercial activity but this car has no direct nexus with his cases. In the instant case if the complainant has purchased the tyres for the truck which was for his livelihood and owns only one truck and he being a very small man it would not be proper to non-suit him on the ground that the tyres were purchased for commercial purpose. We find that the District Forum has committed an error in rejecting the complaint on this ground.

THE complainant states that out of ignorance he has not claimed other damages viz. loss of business and other losses. Since we remand the matter he may be permitted to amend the complaint. THE complainant may make an application to the District Forum for amendment of the complaint. It is for the District Forum to allow amendment or not. We may further add that the issue which was involved was a legal issue and the complaint was not frivolous which can be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the learned Judge ought to have issued notice to the other side and heard them. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The decision of the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum. The District Forum shall issue notice to the Respondents (opposite parties) and hear the case on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.