GIRRAJ PRASAD TIKKIWAL Vs. RAM DEO SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s Karmayogi Builders Pvt. Ltd. purchased an air-conditioned NE-118 car from M/s Byford Leasing Ltd. , defendant No.1 for Rs.2,68,066/- on 16.5.90. It is alleged that defendant No.1 represented that it was authorised dealer of M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. , defendant No.3 and was authorised to sell the car on their behalf. The AC fitted in the car, however, was a defective one. It is further alleged that the market price of the car was Rs.2,34,000/- whereas the complainant was required to pay Rs.2,68,066/- by defendant No.1. The complainant took loan of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Citi Bank, defendant No.2 for purchasing the car. Defendant No.4 was a dealer of defendant No.3 at Delhi. It is stated that in fact defendant No.1 was not a dealer of the defendant No.3 and its representation was wrong. It is further stated that all the defendants in collusion with each other cheated the complainant and therefore, an appropriate action be taken against them. The complaint was contested by the defendants Nos.1,2,3 and 4 inter-alia on the ground that the complainant was a company which was carrying on business and consequently it does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer'. It is alleged that in this situation no complaint could be filed by it. On merits defendant No.4, M/s Prem Nath Motors, stated that it sold the car in dispute, which was an non-AC car, for a consideration of Rs.1,88,480/- to one M/s Chemical India on 25th May' 90 and its delivery was given to them. Thereafter it is not known how the car came in possession of defendant No.1 and sold by it to the complainant. Defendant No.1 purchased the car not from defendant No.4 but from a third party and therefore the defendant No.4 was not liable in any way. Similar pleas were taken by defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 in its written statement stated that no misrepresentation was made by it to the complainant. On the other hand the answering defendant had told the complainant, that it was a car which was purchased in resale. Consequently the defendant cannot be held liable to reimburse the complainant the question to be determined is whether the complainant is a consumer or not. The word 'consumer' has been defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and it rends as follows: -"a 'consumer' means any person who, buys any goods for consideration. . , but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(2.) The car was admittedly purchased by the complainant which was carrying on the business as a builder. It is being used by the company and its directors and the employees for the purpose of business of the company. A plain reading of the section shows that if the goods are purchased by a person for any commercial purpose, he does not come within the purview of said defination. In the circumstances the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' and therefore, it is not entitled to file the complaint. In view of fact that the complainant is not entitled to file the complaint it is not necessary to decide the complaint on merits. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint. We further hold that defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are not entitled to any costs whereas defendant Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to costs which we assess at Rs.2,000/-. The costs shall be shared equally by defendant Nos.3 and 4.