Surya Agroils Ltd. vs ALLIED MOTORS LTD.

AN Ambassador Car was purchased by the complainant from the respondent on 9.2.91. The warranty which was given by the respondent to him was as follows: "For a period of twelve months or 16,000 kms., whichever occurs earlier from the date on which a new car is delivered, Hindustan Motors Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Company will exchange or repair any part or parts thereof which need replacement or repair by reason of defective workmanship or defective material (except batteries, bulbs, tyres & tubes and accessories not originally fitted by the Company). In respect of paint work the Company''s warranty obligation shall terminate at the end of 6 months or 8,000 kms., whichever occurs earlier."

IT is alleged that car has developed certain defects, which have not been removed by the respondent. It has been prayed by the complainant that the respondents be directed to replace the car.

The question that arises for determination is whether the complainant is a consumer. It is not disputed that the complainant owns a factory, in which edible oil is being manufactured and the car has been purchased for the purpose of the Company. Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word ''Consumer''. According to that the "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 include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes; or (ii) hires 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 the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are available of with the approval of the first mentioned person;"

THE learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that there is no nexus between the car and the production of the oil and therefore, the car should not be considered to have been purchased for a commercial purpose. We have duly considered the argument but regret our inability to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. The car has been purchased from the funds of the Company and the complainant is claiming depreciation of the car and expenses of running the car from the Income Tax Department. The car can be used by the officers for the purposes of the Company. If conveyance is not provided to the officers, the work of Company is likely to suffer. So it cannot be said that the use of Car has no nexus with the production of the oil. Therefore, we reject the submission.

FACED with this situation, the learned Counsel has argued that this case also falls under Sub clause (ii) of the aforesaid Clause (d). He submits that there is deficiency in service of the respondent as they could not remove the defects in the car. It is true that in the warranty given to the complainant, it was provided that if any part required replacement within a period of twelve months or 16,000 kms., whichever is earlier, that part would be replaced or repaired; but as already mentioned above, the car was purchased in Feb. 1991 and, therefore, the warranty period expired before the filing of the complaint. Under the circumstances the complainant cannot take benefit of the warranty clause. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the same in limine. The copy of the order be sent/given to the complainant. Complaint dismissed. ________________