NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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