RAKESH GUGNANI Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the limited purpose of adjudicating on the preliminary jurisdictional objections about the very maintenance of the complaint it is wholly unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and the merits. It suffices to mention that on the complainant's own showing, a Premier Padmini Car was purchased from M/s Bharat Tractors Ltd. , Rohtak on the 31st of March, 1992, by Rakesh Gugnani, complainant No.1. Within a month thereof, he sold the said vehicle on the 24th of April, 1992 to Jai Singh complainant No.2. It is further averred that complainant No.1 purchased the car out of the taxi quota and the same has been used as taxi by complainant No.2. Allegations of inherent defects in the said car are the foundation for the complaint.

(2.) In the written statement on behalf of opposite party No.1 M/s Premier Automobiles Ltd. , a preliminary objection has been taken that the complainants do not come within the definition of a 'consumer'. It is pointed out that the original purchaser had admittedly divested himself of the title to the vehicle within one month of its purchase and further the vehicle was plainly purchased for the commercial purpose of running it as a taxi. Somewhat identical preliminary objections are equally taken on behalf of opposite party No.3.

(3.) This case was first listed for arguments on the aforesaid preliminary objections on the 29th of January, 1993. Strangely, no appearance was put in on behalf of the complainant whilst the preliminary objections have been strenuously pressed by the learned Counsel for opposite parties No. l and 3. There is patent merit in the submissions sought to be raised by the learned Counsel. Somewhat curiously, the joint complainants have themselves exposed the Achilles heel of their case in their own averments. It is common ground that complainant No.1 has sold the vehicle as far back as 28th of April, 1992. Patently he is no longer a person who is now the Owner of the goods and cannot easily fit in the definition of a 'consumer' which visualises a privity of contract betwixt the purchaser and the seller at the stage when the lis arises. Not only that , the submission made on behalf of the opposite parties that the vehicle was apparently obtained for resale, is equally meritorious. It bears repetition that a valuable motor vehicle was disposed of within less than a month of its purchase and the inference follows that the primal intent was to trade there. This has been further highlighted by the learned Counsel that the original purchaser Shri Rakesh Gugnani is a partner of M/s Sorabh Financial Corporation, Rohtak which is a concern connected or dealing with motor vehicles. Consequently, it is somewhat obvious that complainant No.1 himself would not come within the definition of a 'consumer'.