B.C. Gupta ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Member)
1. Noticing an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by this Commission in Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. v. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and T and T Motors Ltd. MANU/CF/0188/2007 : IV (2007) CPJ 1 (NC) and General Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. G.S. Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. [First Appeal No. 723 of 2006] decided on 07.02.2013, both rendered by Benches comprising two Members, the following issue was referred to this larger Bench, for decision:--
• "Whether the purchase of a car or any other goods by a company for the use/personal use of its Director amounts to purchase for a commercial purpose, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, or not."
2. In Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. (supra), a complaint alleging defects in two Mercedes Benz, cars purchased by the complainant company for the use of its directors, was filed before this Commission. The complaint was resisted inter-alia on the ground that the cars were purchased for a commercial purpose. Rejecting the contention, this Commission inter-alia held as under:
"In our view, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention, because:
• Company is a legal entity and is entitled to file complaint;
• The cars are purchased for the use of the Directors and are not to be used for any activity directly connected with commercial purpose of earning profit. Cars are not used for hire but are for the personal use of the Directors. Hence, it cannot be said that the complainant company has purchased the cars for commercial purpose."
An appeal against the above-referred decision is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In General Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a complaint alleging defect in a car purchased by the complainant company for use of its Managing Director was filed before the concerned State Commission. The complaint was resisted inter-alia on the ground that purchase of the vehicle for the use of the Managing Director of the company amounted to purchase for a commercial purpose. Accepting the said contention, this Commission inter-alia held as under:
"We note that in his complaint before the State Commission the Respondent-Complainant had clearly stated that the vehicle was purchased for the use of its Managing Director. We agree with Appellants' contention that this clearly amounts to its purchase for a 'commercial purpose' since the Managing Director of a private limited company would obviously not use this vehicle for self-employment to earn his livelihood but for 'commercial purposes' as a perk of his office. Counsel for the Respondent-Complainant has sought to challenge this contention by pointing out that since the present case pertains to 1999 and the amendment referred to was made only in 2002, it was not applicable in the instant case. We are unable to agree with this contention as well because the 2002 Amendment to the Act pertains to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act relating to hiring or availing of services for a consideration and not to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act which relates to purchase of goods. In fact, the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act relating inter alia to purchase of goods has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as far back as in 1995 in its judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [MANU/SC/0271/1995 : 1995 (3) SCC 583], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled as follows:
"...On this interpretation of the definition clause, persons buying ........