Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DSCDRC): Coram of Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) decided on the question whether if a car is purchased for the personal use of a company’s Vice President, would the acquisition of such a car come under the Consumer Protection Act.
Present complaint was filed against Mercedes Benz India Private Limited and T&T Motors Limited.
As per the facts of the matter, complainant 1 had purchased a ‘Mercedes Benz C 220’ Car from OP 2 for the personal use of Complainant 2, being Vice president of the company. The said car broke down during the rainfall in Delhi and was sent to OP 3 for repair.
However, till the finding of the present complaint, the complainants received more than five estimates for repair of the said car from the opposite parties, which in total amounted to more than the value of the car.
The car was not delivered by the OPs even after the lapse of 3 months due to which the complainants raised grievances to the OPs, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle resulting in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
OPs contended that the complainants cannot be stated to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the said car was purchased by the company for its Vice president and the same amounted to commercial purpose.
Further, it was added that the vehicle was used in violation of the instructions contained in Owner’s manual and due to negligence, the car broke down.
Cause for delay in repairing was due to the late approval by the Insurance company.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Whether Complainants are consumer or not?
Bench referred to the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Crompton Greaves Limited v. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2121 wherein it was observed that, If a car or other goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by a company for the personal use of its directors or employees, the purpose behind such acquisition is not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company.
The acquisition of the goods or the hiring or availing of services, in order to bring the transaction within the purview of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, should be aimed at generating profits for the company or should otherwise be connected or interwoven with the business activities of the company. The purpose behind such acquisition should be to promote, advance or augment the business activities of the company, by the use of such goods or services.
Hence, relying on the above-settled proposition of law, Commission in the present matter held that complainants are a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the said car was purchased for the personal use of the complainant 2 and the purpose behind such purchase was not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company.
Deficiency of Service
OPs failed to show any documentary evidence that the car broke down due to negligence on the part of the complainants or due to the violation of instructions contained in Owner’s manual, hence Commission was in consonance with the contention of the complainants that the said car suffered from some manufacturing defects which were suppressed by the OPs.
Complainant 2 was put to great inconvenience and remained without a vehicle for 4 months.
Bench directed the OP 2 to pay Rs 2,50,000 to the complainants as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment faced by the complainants and Rs 50,000 as litigation costs. [CJ DARCL Logistics Ltd. v. Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd., Complaint No. 584 of 2013, decided on 05-05-2021]
Advocates before the Commission:
Manu Beri, Counsel for the Complainant.
Rabiya Thakur, Counsel for OP-1.
Counsel for OP-3.
The information that you have shared is really amazing. Thanks for sharing the information that will help. Subscribed your blog.