SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. v. Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited and Ors. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (08 Jul 2016)

Vehicles purchased by company for officers’ personal use not excluded from consumer protection law

MANU/CF/0209/2016

Consumer

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that vehicles purchased by a company for its directors for their personal use are not excluded from protections under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The NCDRC had received the query: “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”.

The Appellant, Crompton Greaves, had purchased two Daimler (Mercedes) cars for use by its directors, but defects were found and a complaint was registered before the Commission. Daimler claimed that since the cars were purchased for a commercial purpose, the Consumer Protection Act was inapplicable.

The Commission looked to the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Act and noted that emphasis was on the purpose for which goods were obtained and would be put to use for. It opined, “If a car or other goods are purchased or the services are hired or availed by a company for the personal use of its directors or employees, the purpose behind such acquisition is not to earn profits or to advance the business activities of the company.”

Occasional and incidental use of the cars by the directors or employees of the company for the purposes of company business would not lead to a conclusion that the same were purchased for a commercial purpose.

Relevant : Controls and Switchgear Company Ltd. v. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. and T and T Motors Ltd. MANU/CF/0188/2007 Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute MANU/SC/0271/1995

Tags : CONSUMER PROTECTION   VEHICLES   COMERCIAL USE   DIRECTORS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved