SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law  ||  Supreme Court: Accused Deserves Parity With Discharged Co-Accused if Evidence is Not Stronger  ||  SC Allows Euthanasia of Rabid Stray Dogs if Necessary and Protects Officials Acting in Good Faith  ||  Kerala High Court: University Syndicate Cannot Sue Chancellor as Both Form Same Legal Body  ||  Kerala High Court: Unsigned FIS is Admissible if Informant Confirms its Contents in Court  ||  J&K&L High Court: Purchaser’s Structure on Migrant Land Alone Cannot Block Sale Deed Registration  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Remains the Rule and Jail the Exception, Even under the UAPA Law  ||  Supreme Court: Principle of Res Judicata Also Applies Between Stages of the Same Case  ||  Supreme Court: Govt Servant Has No Right to Old Rule Promotion Just Due to Earlier Vacancies    

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