REETA RANI vs METRO MOTORS PVT LTD

THE claim of the appellant (complainant) was rejected on the ground that he had purchased vehicle for commercial purpose and thus it does not come within the meaning of consumer dispute and relied upon N. Akmalkhan v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Ors. , II (2004) CPJ 612, wherein the Tamilnadu State Commission observed that "where commercial purpose is involved that is not a consumer dispute. "

IT is not disputed that the appellant (complainant) had purchased a vehicle make Tata 207/31 DI x CLB bearing Chassis No. 374435 HCZ 928708, Engine No. 497 sp 27 HVZ 916333 for a sum of Rs. 3,67,082 from the respondent No. 2 on 22. 9. 2004. The said vehicle was under warranty for 18 months. However, after one month of its purchase the vehicle developed some defect of low pulling power. The appellant approached the respondents for rectifying the defects or to return the money of the price of the truck along with interest @ 18% per annum, to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses. The claim of the appellant (complainant) was resisted on the ground of maintainability and jurisdiction. After relying upon the authorities detailed in the impugned order, the claim of the appellant (complainant) was rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, the appellant (complainant) has come up in appeal.

The appellant has based his claim on Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd. v. Indocon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. , III (2006) CPJ 264 (NC)=2006 (3) Con. LT 312, wherein the Hon''ble National Commission observed that where the machinery is purchased for commercial purpose for the manufacturing defects, if noticed during the warranty period, the complainant was held to be a consumer and if the opposite party is not rectifying its defects, it can be treated as a case of deficiency of service and the opposite party is liable to compensate the petitioner. Reference was also made on the observations made in case East India Construction Co. and Anr. v. Modern Consultancy Services and Others, II (2006) CPJ 289 (NC)=2006 (2) Con. LT 413, wherein in para No. 16 of the judgment, the Hon''ble National Commission observed as under: "the first issue has been answered by this Commission in a catena of judgments wherein it has held that even though the machine/equipment is used for commercial/industrial purposes if any manufacturing defect occurs during the warranty period then the issue is covered under the Act and for that purpose purchaser of the equipment is entitled to file a complaint under the Act. This point has been elaborated in the following judgments some of which are quoted below-In Meera and Co. Ltd. v. Chinar Synten Ltd. , 2004 CTJ 1086 (CP) (NCDRC), this Commission has held that even if the generating set purchased by the complainant for a commercial purpose, it suffered the alleged defects during its warranty period of one year and, therefore, the complainant as well within its right to move the Consumer Forums under the Act, it being a consumer of the opposite party''s service. This Commission also mentioned that if any authority is needed on that settled position in law, reference may be made to the decision in Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios and Anr. , 1996 CTJ 906 (CP ). "

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the observations made by the National Commission in the aforesaid authorities are not disputed, but the same are not attracted to the present case. The present case is of a commercial vehicle which the complainant had purchased from the respondents vide bill dated 22. 9. 2004 with a warranty of 18 months. It is not a case where the vehicle Tata 207/31 DI x CLB bearing Chassis No. 374435 HCZ 928708, Engine No. 497 sp 27 HVZ 916333 was purchased for loading and unloading of various items and said vehicle was plied on the road in different climatic conditions by various persons including Sonu, Satyawan, Subhash Chand and Ramesh. It has nowhere come on the record as to how much kilometres were covered by the vehicle before claiming the warranty of 18 months. It is a normal practice that various automobile companies offer warranty of the vehicle for two years or minimum kilometres the vehicle covers. The appellant (complainant) has not led any evidence to show that within 18 months of warranty period, how much kilometres were covered by the vehicle in question. The documents are totally silent about this. Hence, the evidence of the appellant (complainant) is lacking. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, the appellant cannot derive the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.