Aircel Ltd., and Another Vs. Syed Oli, Managing Director, Dindugal District and Another

Aircel Ltd., and Another vs Syed Oli, Managing Director, Dindugal District and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Nov 28, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1111647

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1111647
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: Hon'Ble Thiru Justice N. Kannadasan, President Thiru Pon. Gunasekaran B.a.,B.L., Member - I
Decided On: Nov 28, 2008
Case Number: F.A. NO.75 of 2006 {Against O.P.No.21/2004 on the file of the DCDRF, Dindugali}
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aircel Ltd., and Another

Respondent

Syed Oli, Managing Director, Dindugal District and Another

Excerpt

.....filed on behalf of the firm. the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint itself ought not have been entertained since the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the act. we have perused the entire averments made in the complaint. the averment clearly discloses that the complainant has purchased several mobile phones from the opposite parties and all the mobile phones to be used by employees of the firm and the firm is carrying on business pertaining to the usage of the mobile phones. in as much as the averment itself is very clear to the effect that the goods are purchased for commercial purpose, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the honble national commission in its decision render in âm/s.harsolia motors vs. m/s. national insurance co. ltd., and orsâ reported in â2005 (1) cpr 1 (nc)â has explained about the definition of section 2 (1) (d) and what is a commercial purpose âwhether the services are availed for any commercial purposeâ. in the light of the principles laid down and as well as plain reading of the provision and averments made in the complaint, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable. 4. accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the district forum is set aside. 5. the mandatory deposit paid by the appellant may be refunded on filing necessary memo in this regard.

Full Judgment

N. KANNADASAN J.

1. The first and third opposite parties are the appellants and the first respondent is the complainant and second respondent is the second opposite party before the District Forum.

2. The complaint is filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the Mobile Phones purchased by the complainant. The District Forum has allowed the complaint and granted relief therein, as against which the present appeal is file.

3. The short question that is raised before this Commission is that even though the complainant is filed in his individual name by showing the Cause Title to the effect that he is the Managing Director of K.S.O.P. Traders, in reality, the complaint has to be construed as if it is filed on behalf of the Firm. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint itself ought not have been entertained since the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act. We have perused the entire averments made in the complaint. The averment clearly discloses that the complainant has purchased several Mobile Phones from the opposite parties and all the Mobile Phones to be used by employees of the Firm and the Firm is carrying on business pertaining to the usage of the Mobile Phones. In as much as the averment itself is very clear to the effect that the goods are purchased for commercial purpose, we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Honble National Commission in its decision render in âM/s.Harsolia Motors Vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Orsâ reported in â2005 (1) CPR 1 (NC)â has explained about the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) and what is a commercial purpose âWhether the services are availed for any commercial purposeâ. In the light of the principles laid down and as well as plain reading of the provision and averments made in the complaint, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable.

4. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.

5. The mandatory deposit paid by the Appellant may be refunded on filing necessary Memo in this regard.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties Aircel Ltd., and Another vs Syed Oli, Managing Director, Dind... Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Hon'Ble Thiru Justice N. Kannadasan, President Thiru Pon. Gun...