Purchase of cars by the company for personal use of its directors - It could not be said that such car was purchased by the company for its "commercial purpose - overheating was a 'defect' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) - Incomplete disclosure of details of airbags is unfair trade practice.

Citation 

AIROnline 2024 SC 468

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2008. D/d. 09.07.2024.

M/s Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. - Appellants

Versus

M/s Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents C.A. NO. 19536-19537 of 2017.

Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants

Versus

CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents C.A. No. 2633 Of 2018.

M/s. CG Power And Industrial Solutions Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986,

Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Definition

of "consumer" does not include a

person who obtains any goods for

"resale" or for "any commercial

purpose" - Though what is "commercial

purpose" has not been defined under

the Act, it has been interpreted in

catena of decisions by Supreme Court.

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer - Purchase of cars by the company for personal use of its directors - It could not be said that such a high-priced luxurious car was purchased by the company for its "commercial purpose.

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f) - Defect - Car purchased by respondent Portions of back - overheating is a defect - Overheating of the surface of hump and the overall high temperature in the car was a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality or standard which was expected to be maintained by the appellants under the contract with the respondent-complainant and therefore was a 'defect' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(f) of the said Act.

D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(c) - Defect - Unfair Trade Practice Luxury Car Incomplete disclosure or non-disclosure of the complete details with regard to the functioning of the airbags at the time of promotion of the car, has rightly been considered by the National Commission as the "unfair trade practice" and awarded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs towards it - Commission has also rightly balanced the equity by awarding Rs. 5 lakhs only towards the deficiency in service on account of the frontal airbags of the car having not deployed at the time of accident.

[Para 37]

E. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r) - Unfair Trade Practice Nothing in Owner's Manual or in the Brochure about the limited functioning of the airbags, which was an additional safety measure in the car is "unfair trade practice".