Case nº Consumer Case No. 51 of 2006 of NCDRC Cases, July 08, 2016 (case 1. Crompton Greaves Limited and Anr. 2. Mr. Sudhir M. Trehan Vs 1. Daimler Chrysler India Privte Limited and Ors. 2. Auto Hanger (India) Pvt. Ltd.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Kalyan Arambam, Advocate, Mr. Kaustubh Seth, Advocate and Ms. Priyanka Raj, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. M.S. Pandit, Advocate and Mr. Harish Sandhu, Advocate |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain, President and Mr. Justice V.K. Jain, Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member |
| Resolution Date | July 08, 2016 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
V.K. Jain, Member
-
Noticing an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by this Commission in Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and T and T Motors Ltd. IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) and General Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S. Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. [First Appeal No. 723 of 2006] decided on 07.02.2013, both rendered by Benches comprising two Members, the following issue was referred to this larger Bench, for decision:-
-
In Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. (supra), a complaint alleging defects in two Mercedes Benz, cars purchased by the complainant company for the use of its directors, was filed before this Commission. The complaint was resisted inter-alia on the ground that the cars were purchased for a commercial purpose. Rejecting the contention, this Commission inter-alia held as under:
In our view, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention, because:
An appeal against the above-referred decision is pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
In General Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a complaint alleging defect in a car purchased by the complainant company for use of its Managing Director was filed before the concerned State Commission. The complaint was resisted inter-alia on the ground that purchase of the vehicle for the use of the Managing Director of the company amounted to purchase for a commercial purpose. Accepting the said contention, this Commission inter-alia held as under:
"We note that in his complaint before the State Commission the Respondent-Complainant had clearly stated that the vehicle was purchased for the use of its Managing Director. We agree with Appellants'' contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a ''commercial purpose'' since the Managing Director of a private limited company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for ''commercial purposes'' as a perk of his office. Counsel for the Respondent-Complainant has sought to challenge this contention by pointing out that since the present case pertains to 1999 and the amendment referred to was made only in 2002, it was not applicable in the instant case. We are unable to agree with this contention as well because the 2002 Amendment to the Act pertains to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act relating to hiring or availing of services for a consideration and not to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act which relates to purchase of goods. In fact, the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act relating inter alia to purchase of goods has been well settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as far back as in 1995 in its judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [1995 (3) SCC 583], wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has ruled as follows:
"... On this interpretation of the definition clause, persons buying goods either for resale or for use in large scale profit-making activity will not be ''consumers'' entitled to protection under the Act. It seems to us clear that the intention of Parliament as can be gathered from the definition section is to deny the benefits of the Act to persons purchasing goods either for purpose of resale or for the purpose of being used in profit-making activity engaged on a large scale. It would thus follow that cases of purchase of goods for consumption or use in the manufacture of goods or commodities on a large scale with a view to make profit will all fall outside the scope of the definition. It is obvious that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large-scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. In order that exclusion clause should apply it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial