SWARAJ MAZDA LTD. vs MOHAN KUMAR BHANDARI

THIS is a Revision Petition against the Order dated 18th of October, 1991 in Appeal No. 186/90 of the State Commission of Maharashtra. The State Commission set aside the Order of the District Forum which had held that the respondent complainant wanted to purchase a van for business viz., commercial purpose and that, therefore, he was not a "consumer " under the Consumer Protection Act. It remanded the case back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication.

FROM a perusal of the Order of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission and the Revision Petition before us, it appears that there has been a complete misapprehension of the facts of this case. The complainant before the District Forum (appellant before the State Commission and respondent here) had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,87,000/- by way of a Bank Demand Draft with respondent No, 2 M/s. Golden Automobiles on 20th December, 1990 for purchase of a mini bus manufactured by the Revision Petitioner viz. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. The particular mini bus was not available with the dealer who informed the respondent-complainant to that effect. However, the respondent-complainant insisted on getting the mini bus he had ordered. Eventually, the goods ordered viz. the mini bus was not provided to the respondent-complainant and the unencashed demand draft was returned to the respondent-complainant on the 8th February, 1991 i.e., after about two months, It is the grievance of the respondent-complainant that he lost interest on this amount and his business suffered on account of the non-supply of the mini bus and that, therefore, the service rendered by the dealer respondent No. 2 (Golden Automobiles) was deficient in many respects. The State Commission held that" ''consumer, cannot be said to be a consumer if he purchases the goods for commercial purpose" but maintained that "if a consumer has grievance about the service of any kind as provided in Section 2(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act...then his complaint cannot be rejected even if he hires the services for a commercial purpose". The State Commission came to the finding that the consumer has the grievance about the services and hence it allowed the complaint, set aside the order of the District Forum and remanded the complaint to the District Forum for adjudication afresh.

THE facts stated above clearly indicate that there has been no sale of any goods nor had the revision petitioner undertaken to render any service for hire. The amount of Rs. 3,87,000/- was deposited by bank draft as consideration for the purchase of a mini bus; it was not a hire amount for any service to be rendered by respondent No. 2 Golden Automobiles; it was the price of the goods to be purchased. The District Forum was in error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the intended purchase was fora commercial purpose. The complaint ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the Complainant was not a Consumer since he had neither purchased any goods nor hired any service for consideration. The State Commission was in error in allowing the complaint in appeal by holding that the failure to provide the mini bus or, in alterative, to refund the amount immediately amounts to deficiency in service when no service had been undertaken to be performed by the Revision Petitioner nor any consideration paid for hiring any service.

IN the result, the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it and there has been a material irregularity in the exercise of its powers leading to miscarriage of justice. The Order of the State Commission is set aside. The order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint will stand restored though the dismissal is on grounds different from the one stated by the District Forum. The parties will bear their respective costs.