i.	Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1) (d) - Vehicle possessed under hire purchase agreement - Financer does not render any service within meaning of the Act - Hirer complainant would not be a Consumer and cannot prosecute remedy before Consumer Fora for vehicle repossessed by Financer (Para 4).
ii.	Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Complainant had a truck 407 manufactured by appellant under hire-purchase agreement - Chasis of truck developed crack within the warranty period and vehicle was repossessed by Financer and sold - Complaint claiming compensation - District Forum allowed complaint directing appellant-manufacturer to provide new truck to complainant - Appeal -Complaint against Financer was not maintainable as complainant was not a consumer under hire-purchase agreement - Evidence to show that chasis had developed crack during warranty period-Complainant having purchased vehicle to earn livelihood by self-employment was a consumer - Crack had developed during warranty period and replacement of damaged part formed part of service promised by manufacturer - Evidence to show that crack in chasis was due to manufacturing defect - No justification for order to provide new vehicle to complainant - Chasis was needed to be replaced - Since vehicle had been repossessed, complainant was entitled to compensation - Complainant had continued to ply vehicle even after noticing defect of crack in chasis and had suffered accident twice - In given circumstances, it was impossible to assess exact loss - General damages at Rs. 50,000/- awarded with interest at 9% p.a. from date of complaint.
(Paras 5 to 9)
Result: Appeal allowed accordingly. Cases Referred:
1.	Ram Deshlahara, III (2006) CPJ 247 (NC) (Para 4).
2.	East India construction Co. & Anr v. Modern Consultancy Services & ors. II (2006) CPJ 289 (NC) (Para 5).
3.	Meera & Co. Ltd. V. Chinar System Ltd., II (2004) CPJ 24 (NC) (Para 5).
4.	Amterx Ambience Ltd. V. Ms. Alpha Radios & Anr., I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC) (Para 5).
Important Point Under a hire-purchase agreement, Financer does not render any service and hirer-complainant is not a consumer. Order The following order of the Commission was delivered by Justice N K Jain, President.
1.	Both these appeals No. 857/05 by the manufacturer and the dealer of Tata vehicles and No 1135/05 by Tata Finance Ltd heard as connected matters, arise from the order dated 9.3.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa in CC No. 145/98.
2.	For the purpose of this order respondent No.1 - Sant Bahadur Singh in both the appeals shall 'be referred as complainant, while appellants - Tata Motors Ltd, Commercial Automobiles and Tata Finance Ltd shall be referred as Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
3.	The dispute pertained to a 407 truck manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and made available to complainant on hire purchase basis on 14.6.1995 by opposite party No. 3 through opposite party No. 2 - dealer. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was two fold: One that the chasis of the truck developed crack within the warranty period, but the same was not replaced by the opposite parties; and two, that the truck was wrongly repossessed and illegally sold by Opposite party No. 3 - Finance Company. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties through two separate written statements and preliminary objection as to the tenability of the complaint on the grounds that truck in question was purchased for commercial purpose and that there being arbitration clause in the hire purchase agreement, the complaint was not maintainable. However, the Forum below over-ruled both the objections and upheld the complaint of the complainant directing all the opposite parties to provide to the complainant a new truck of the same capacity and also pay to him compensation of Rs. 10,000, besides Rs. 1,000 as cost.
4.	As regards the repossession and sale of tractor by OP No. 3 - Tata Finance Ltd, it may be observed at the outset that the truck in question was made available to the complainant on hire-purchase basis and the ownership of the truck vested with the finance company (OP No.3) and the complainant was only a hirer. Hon'ble the National Commission in the case of Ram Deshlahara1 has held that under a hire-purchase transaction the financer does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the hirer-complainant is, thus, not a consumer. The complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was therefore, not maintainable and his remedy lay elsewhere not under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. It will thus, be seen that no order for replacement of truck or payment of any compensation could be made against OP No. 3 - Finance Company and the order passed by the District Forum in this regard is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone.
5.	This leaves us with the question of manufacturing defect in the said truck. There is documentary evidence available on record that on 15.4.1996, when the complainant took the said truck for servicing to Sunny Auto Agency which was then the authorised service agent of OP No. 1 - company, the complainant was informed that the chassis of the vehicle had cracked. In the job card (vide Ex. P30), it was clearly stated that new chassis is not available with the agency and that the same shall be supplied on receipt of it from the manufacturing company. As already stated Sunny Auto Agency was the authorized service agents of the OP No. 1 - company and so, the acknowledgement made in the job card is binding on the OP No. 1 - company. Even otherwise, there is no reason to disbelieve complainant's evidence on that point. OP Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the manufacturer and the dealer have resisted complainant's complaint in this regard on the ground that the truck in question having been hired for commercial purpose, the complaint was not maintainable inasmuch as the complainant was not a 'consumer' as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum below has overruled the objection and in our opinion rightly as the truck was hired by the complainant for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Complainant's statement in that regard made on his affidavit, could not be challenged or rebutted successfully by the opposite parties. The case of the complainant thus fell within the exception .as provided by the explanation to clause (d) of Section 2 (1) of the C P Act. Even otherwise, the truck in question had developed the said crack during the warranty period and replacement of damaged part of the vehicle forms part of service promised to be rendered by the opposite parties, the manufacturer and the dealer. Legal position on the point is made luculent by the National Commission in the case of East India Construction Co. & Anr. vs. Modern Consultancy Services & Ors.2 in following words: "The first issue has been answered by this Commission in a catena of judgments wherein it has held that even though the machine equipment is used for commercial/ industrial purpose, if any manufacturing defect occurs during the warranty period then the issue is covered under the Act and for that purpose, purchaser of the equipment is entitled to file a complaint under the Act. This point has been elaborated in the following judgments some of which are quoted below: Meera & Co. Ltd vs. Chinar System Ltd3 and Amtrex Ambience Ltd v. Ms Alpha Radioa and Anr. 4"
6.	Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. I and 2 has pointed out that the truck had met with accident twice and the damage caused in any such accident was not covered by the warranty. We are not persuaded by the argument. There is evidence on record to show that the truck met with an accident on 7.6.1996 and then on 24.5.1997 Le. much after the said crack being noticed in the truck on 15.4.1996. The crack in chassis was not the result of any such accident, but due to manufacturing defect. Both the manufacturer and the dealer were, therefore, liable to replace the chassis or pay its price to the complainant.
7.	The Forum below has however, ordered for replacement of the entire vehicle. This order in our view is not in tune with Section 14 of the CP Act, which enumerates the relief's which a Forum can grant to a consumer. It was not a case where the entire vehicle was found defective, but only a part of it i.e. the chassis was defective. Needless to say that the chassis is a separable part of the vehicle and the engine of the old vehicle could very well be fitted in a newly replaced chassis. So the only relief the complainant was entitled to get either the chassis replaced or recover its price from the OP Nos. 1 and 2. Now that the truck has been repossessed by the OP No. 3 - financer, the question of replacement of the chassis does not arise.
8.	The only alternative thus left is to compensate the complainant for the said deficiency on the part of the OP Nos. 1 and 2. While computing the compensation it has to be borne in mind that the original chassis (less than two years old) though developed cracks was used by the complainant even after detection of the said defect and the vehicle also suffered two accidents before it was finally repossessed and sold by OP No. 3. The vehicle was sold along with the said chassis and naturally the sale proceeds received by OP No. 3 also included the cost of the said chassis. Under all these circumstances, it is almost impossible to assess the exact loss suffered by the complainant. In our considered view, the interest of justice would be served by awarding general damages Rs. 50,000 besides cost Rs. 5,000 to the complainant.
9.	In the result, the appeal (No. 1135/2005) filed by OP No. 3 - Tata Finance Ltd. is allowed in toto. The order passed by the Forum is set aside as against this opposite party. The complaint of respondent No. 1 - complainant against this opposite party shall stand dismissed. Appeal No. 857/2005 filed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. The order passed by the Forum below for supply of new vehicle and payment of compensation is set aside and, instead, it is directed that these opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to complainant compensation Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 9 per cent p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 30.4.1998. They will also bear complainant's cost of both the fora and the same is quantified at Rs. 5,000.
Appeal allowed accordingly.