GANPAT RAI HANS Vs. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ganpat Rai Hans, a resident of Sector 26, Chandigarh has alleged that in order to earn his livelihood, he purchased one Canter (a small size truck) from M/s. Pasco Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, on 7.6.1995 on payment of Rs.3,65,965/-. It is a product of Tata Engineering and Locomotives, Bombay. After about 13 months, its engine ceased in Rampur, Himachal Pradesh. The vehicle was taken to workshop of respondent No.2 in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh, but the complainant was advised to get the faults repaired and for a few replacements referred to Krishna Auto Sales, Moga, a sister concern of respondent No.2. The complainant carried the vehicle to Moga and was required to spend a sum of Rs.3,500/- on transportation for this purpose. It has been alleged that the complainant was compelled to spend on the maintenance of the driver, etc. and had been suffering a loss of Rs.14,000/- per month. In all the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- and future damages.

(2.) There is a reply in the form of an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it has been averred that the complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. Besides this, it has been averred that the complainant is not a purchaser because he was in arrears of charges as a hirer and a sum of Rs.50,382.57 was outstanding on 4.12.1986. It has further been averred that the complainant used spurious mico oil filter totally against the advice and did not follow the guidelines published in the Operations Book. The technical staff of the respondent found that the engine of the truck in question ceased because of the contractual violations as a consequence of the excessive wear and tear of the engine components and it was not covered under Clause 5 of the warranty. The approval for handling the vehicle in question was secured from Pune and it took time. The complainant himself did not collect the vehicle from Moga though it had become road-worthy in the month of September, 1996.

(3.) In this case the vehicle in question was purchased on 7.6.1995 and the complainant gave his address as a resident of G. T. Road, Moga at the time of its purchase. However, it appears that the complainant had been residing in Sector 9, Panchkula and in his own complaint he has given his address as if he is running Hans Trading Company, Sabzi Mandi, Sector 26, Chandigarh. One important plea taken on behalf of the respondents is that the vehicle was purchased and was utilised for commercial purpose. However, may be that the complainant is using this vehicle to earn his livelihood and might have been transporting vegetables, etc. from hilly are, of Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh. We hold that complainant is a consumer.