Sanghi Brothers Manager vs Raj Kumar Jaiswal

THE complainant had purchased one vehicle Tata 709 Bus from the respondent on 5.2.2007. According to the complainant the said vehicle had manufacturing defect and he had to get the vehicle repaired at his own cost from outside. The case of the complainant further is that the said vehicle was under contract with Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation on account of which he suffered loss of business @ Rs. 5,000 per day for 22 days and the total amount claimed for business loss is Rs. 1,10,000. Besides this, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was spent on the repairs of the vehicle. The complainant, therefore, sought directions to provide new vehicle or to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. This complaint was dismissed by an elaborate judgment by the District Forum wherein all the material and relevant aspects had been considered threadbare. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission.

THE State Commission in a slipshod order without considering the relevant material on record held the OP negligent and deficient in rendering service and ordered payment of Rs. 68,341 with 6% interest from the date of complaint as also further compensation of Rs. 50,000. This order is challenged in revision.

THE matter was finally heard at the admission stage after the Counsel for the parties were informed about it.

LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the vehicle was purchased for the commercial purpose; that there are no averments that the vehicle was being used for livelihood and as such the complainant is not a consumer; that the vehicle was taken for repairs to an unauthorized centre; that there are violations of terms of warranty; that the servicing was not done on due dates; that the vehicle was being misused and was being overloaded and kerosene was being mixed with the petrol as a result of which, the fuel pipe did not function to its full capacity and that in fact the vehicle had already covered a distance of 96925 kms.

LEARNED Counsel for the complainant had practically no answer to the issues raised by the Counsel for the petitioner in this revision.

THE complainant had himself admitted in the complaint that the vehicle was on under contract with Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation on account of which he suffered loss of business @ Rs. 5,000 per day for 22 days and the total amount claimed for business loss is Rs. 1,10,000 in this behalf. The complainant had also admitted in paragraph 2 of the complaint that he got the vehicle repaired on his own cost from the outside. The averments in the complaint itself establish that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant had suffered business loss. In view of this, complainant cannot be considered as a consumer within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. Besides this, the vehicle was taken to an unauthorized workshop; there was violation of terms of warranty and the servicing was not done on the due dates; and the vehicle has already done 96929 kms.

ON the basis of material on record, the District Forum had very rightly held that there was neither deficiency in service nor negligence and had dismissed the complaint. The State Commission erred in setting aside the said well reasoned order of the District Forum

FOR the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside and order of the District Forum is restored. The complaint stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.