RAJENDRAS Vs. TATA FINANCE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has moved this complaint under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices qua booking of one car by the applicant/ complainant on 17th January, 1999.

(2.) It transpires from the material on record that the applicant/complainant is a proprietor of one firm by the name of Messrs Rajendras. The business of the applicant/complainant through his firm is that of builders. It transpires from copies of the Income-tax Return and the Assessment Orders annexed to this complaint that he has been using his car for business purposes and he has claimed depreciation and repair charges and car insurance amount and of car loan instalment in his Income-tax Returns. This would prima facie show that he would like to purchase the new car for his business purposes.

(3.) It may be noted that the word "consumer" has not been defined in the MRTP Act. However, in view of the binding Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ballarpur Industries Limited V/s. The Director General (Investigation and Registration), 1988 64 CompCas 884, the definition of the word "consumer" contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the CP Act for brief) will have to be adopted for the purposes of the MRTP Act. The word "consumer" therein is defined in Sec.2 (d) to exclude a person who purchases goods inter alia for any commercial purpose. A car would certainly fall within the purview of the term "goods" as defined in Sec.2 (i) of the CP Act. The use of car for his business purposes by the applicant/complainant would certainly be a commercial purpose.