REHAL CARRIER (TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS) vs Ashok Leyland Ltd.

THE complainant is a transport contractor working under the name and style of M/s. Rehal Carrier and has described himself as specialist in trailer transportation. He already possessed two trailers of Ashok Leyland make and had been doing the business described above. He purchased a third trailer on 31.10.1996 for a sum of Rs. 5,61,336.88. His allegation is that it did not give satisfactory service and started giving trouble on account of manufacturing defects. A sum of Rs. 10,50,799/- together with interest @ 24% per annum, a further sum of Rs. 5 lacs on account of harassment and a further sum of Rs. 11,000/- as costs has been claimed.

A preliminary objection in the written reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and also in the reply filed by respondent No. 3 is that the complainant is a proprietorship concern and owns many vehicles which are operated for commercial purpose through drivers and cleaners and that he is not a consumer and this complaint is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and it should be dismissed on this preliminary objection. On behalf of the respondents our attention has been invited to para 1 of the complaint wherein there is a specific mention that the complainant earlier purchased two trailers in the year 1994 and 1995. Since there was increase in the demand he placed an order for the purchase of this third vehicle of Ashok Leyland make which was delivered on 31.10.1996. In para 7 of the complaint, there is specific mention that the complainant had drivers in his employment. In para 9 of the complaint again there is repetition that the complainant has employed drivers who had been going to Dhulia in Maharashtra, etc. for carrying out business of transportation of the complainant. It is not a case where a person purchased a motor car and utilised it as taxi for his own livelihood.

On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate, has referred to Cheema Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh, 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 131, where it was specifically observed that if the machine was used only for self-employment to earn his livelihood without a sense of commercial purpose by employing on regular basis an employee or workman, then only the grievance of a complainant may be considered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Our attention has also been drawn to Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1986-1995 COnSUMER 1533 (NS)., wherein it was observed that if a firm purchases goods, the members of the firm should themselves ply, operate or use the goods purchased. In the case now in hand the facts are altogether different. The complainant transport firm has employed drivers and thus the present complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus after perusal of the complaint, replies and other reasons referred to above, it is held that the complaint is not maintainable and it is rejected. There is no bar for the complainant to seek remedy in the appropriate Court. Complaint dismissed.