E.J. Bellie, President

1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He has purchased an Ambassador Car (Nova) manufactured by the first opposite party, through the second opposite party under Taxi Quota at Pondicherry in March, ‘91. According to the complainant the suspensor and steering system of the car was not upto the standard and defective. On account of this the complainant was put to several expenses for repairs of these parts. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for direction to the opposite party to replace the existing suspensor and steering system with better parts. A compensation of Rs. 56,000/- also has been claimed

2. The opposite parties contended that the car was purchased in March, 1991 whereas the present complaint has been filed long after the warranty period and therefore the claim is barred by limitation. Admittedly the car was purchased for use as a taxi and as such the purchase was for commercial purpose. So, the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint cannot be maintained. The car in question had already covered a distance of 50,000 kms. within a span of 16 months and this would show that the car was perfectly fit and road worthy.

3. The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite parties and it dismissed the complaint.

4.Now in the appeal we find no reason whatsoever to differ from the finding of the District Forum. As pointed out by the District Forum admittedly the car has been purchased for running it as a taxi and therefore it was for commercial purpose. Of course the owner of the car appears to be a lady but it is not been contended by the complainant that the car was purchased for self-employment to earn her livelihood. Therefore the District Forum has rightly held that the car was purchased for commercial purpose and hence -the complainant is not a consumer and on that ground the complaint has to be dismissed. The District Forum has further held that there is no proof that the suspensor and the steering system in the car was defective and it fell into dis-repair. Nothing was brought to our notice that this finding is not correct. Thus we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the District Forum. There was a guarantee period given and it is not in dispute that the complaint has been filed long after the guarantee period. The District Forum has also found that the car had run more than 50,000 kms. within a span of 16 months and this would show that it was perfectly fit. As against this finding also there is nothing brought to our notice to sh

ow that it is not correct. In these circumstances we find no merit in the appeal. 5. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs. 250/- to the second respondent (The first respondent has remained absent). Appeal dismissed with costs.