TARA PRASAD SWAIN vs Swaraj Mazda Limited

DEFECT in goods is cause of action of this complaint.

CASE of complainant is that after completion of his studies riot being able to get suitable employment, he was interested to enter into transport business to earn his bread and in the year 1990, he purchased a mini truck called Swaraj Mazda-T-3500. The vehicle was found to be defective. Claiming it to be a manufacturing defect, this complaint has been filed. In course of hearing on 10.9.1992, we requested for a personal check up of the vehicle by the officers of No. 1, The order reads as follows : "Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the complainant. Complainant is present. Heard Mr. P.K. Parida for the opposite parties. The Law Officer and the Assistant Manager (Marketing) of the manufacturer and the dealer of Vizag are all present personally. When we suggested that the vehicle should be inspected and thereafter be examined at Vizag at the cost of Opposite Parties, the officers present are good enough to accept our proposal. The dealer also agreed to the same. Accordingly, the complainant shall allow the vehicle to be inspected by the Opposite Parties, within two days where after the Opp. Parties, if it is possible rectify the defects, shall be allowed to take the vehicle to Vizag for the purpose of removing the defects. At that stage, all the defects shall be pointed out by the complainant to the persons inspecting the vehicle and no fur ther defect shall be entertained in future. If any amount shall be required to be paid by the complainant for complying with this, the same shall be intimated to him while taking the vehicle within ten days of the inspection. If the complainant is not willing, the vehicle shall not be taken and the development shall be intimated to this Commission. Put up on 26th October, 1992 for further hearing."

Pursuant to this order, Opposite Parties have complied with the direction and submitted a report and also an affidavit.

In view of the report and the affidavit, we are of the prima facie view that there is no manufacturing defect. Moreover, it is seen from the report that the vehicle was driven by a driver and not by the complainant himself. In that view, the vehicle having been purchased for commercial purpose, complainant will not come within the meaning of consumer. A consumer can file a complaint. Since complainant is not a consumer, this complaint is dismissed as not entertainable by the State Commission. Complainant is at liberty to approach any other forum for redressal and this order shall not be res-judicata. Complaint dismissed.