Car Purchased In Name Of Proprietorship Is For Commercial Purpose, Buyer Not A 'Consumer': Chandigarh Consumer Commission

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd.and its authorised dealer, holding that a car purchased in the name of a proprietorship concern engaged in commercial activity does not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Facts of the Case:

The complainant, Mr. Rajeev Goyal, proprietor of RLCR Super Market, purchased a Mercedes E-220 d Expression car on 13 June 2019 from M/s Joshi AutoZone Pvt. Ltd., an authorised dealer of Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd.

Despite limited usage of about 14,000–15,000 kilometres, the vehicle allegedly developed repeated mechanical and electrical defects, primarily relating to the front left door, including the soft-close motor, window mechanism, door lock and associated electrical components. Issues were also alleged with respect to the sunroof and battery. The complainant was required to make multiple visits to the dealer's service centre, during which certain parts were replaced under warranty.

The complainant claimed that the defects continued to recur despite minimal usage, could not be attributed to normal wear and tear, and indicated inherent defects in the vehicle. After raising his grievance through an email dated 08 April 2021 and receiving no satisfactory resolution, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer and the dealer.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties:

OP No.1, Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., argued that it had no direct role in the sale or after-sales service of the vehicle, maintaining a principal-to-principal relationship with its authorised dealer. It contended that all reported issues were duly attended to under warranty and that the alleged defects were operational in nature arising from normal wear and tear, and not manufacturing defects.

OP No.2, the dealer, contended that the vehicle was serviced as per schedule and that the complained-of parts were replaced under warranty and not repeatedly. It asserted that there was no recurring defect, that the vehicle was in proper running condition, and denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the Mercedes car in question was purchased in the name of a proprietorship concern, RLCR Super Market, which is engaged in commercial activity. It noted that the complainant neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was purchased exclusively for personal use or for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

Relying on Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Commission held that a person purchasing goods for a commercial purpose does not fall within the definition of “consumer” unless the exception of self-employment is clearly established. In the present case, the burden lay on the complainant and remained unfulfilled.

Consequently, without examining the merits of the alleged defects or deficiency in service, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, held that the consumer complaint was not maintainable and dismissed it, while granting liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy before a civil court or other competent forum in accordance with law.

Case No: CC 364 of 2021

CASE TITLE: Rajeev Goyal v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Click Here To Read/Download Order