At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. JANARTHANAM
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SP. SIVAPRAKASAM
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. BANUMATHI BASKARAN
For the Complainant: Anita Sumanth, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties: None.
M.S. Janarthanam, President
1. This action came up for admission before us today [8.5.2000]. We heard learned Counsel Mr. S.M.S. Devadoss representing Ms. Anita Sumanth, appearing for the complainant and also perused the averments made in the complaint as well as the other documents filed alongwith the complaint. The complainant is one M/s. Libra Constructions and Finance Limited. The opposite parties are; (1) M/s. ACT India, MGM Centre, 78, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Chennai-18, and (2) M/s. General Motors India, Chennai Zonal Office, G-2, 16, Sarangapani Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17.
2. The 1st opposite party, it is said, is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party manufacturer of motor vehicles.
3. The complainant-finance company, it is said, purchased an Opel Astra car from the 1st opposite party for Rs. 7,97,866/- on 27.8.1997. The complainant would allege that there were defects in the said car purchased right from the inception of purchase. The warranty period, it appears, for the said car is for a period of one year from the date of purchase. The car was given for second service to the opposite parties on 25.11.1998 long subsequent to the expiry of the warranty period.
4. From the perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the complainant-finance company is a concern and the car had been purchased for commercial purpose. Even if the said car had been purchased for commercial purpose, if there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties during the warranty period, definitely the complainant-finance company must have to be construed as a consumer qua the opposite parties falling with the four corners of the definition of the term 'consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act']. The warranty period had expired on the showing of the complainant-finance company itself. We are of the view that the complainant in such a situation cannot at all be construed
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
as a consumer falling under the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act qua the opposite parties. 5. For the reasons as above, the complaint is rejected in limine. Complaint rejected in limine.