Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Members
SWASTHIK ENGINEER—Appellant
versus
JAGTIAL CONSUMERS WELFARE
COUNCIL, JAGTIAL & ANR.—Respondents
F.A. No. 24 of 1995—Decided on 6.8.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ms. K.C. Viswambharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V. Gourisankar Rao, Advocate.
A consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for personal use and not for resale or commercial purposes.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d) - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - REFUND OF DEFECTIVE MACHINERY - COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF CONSUMER AND JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
A consumer filed a complaint against a company for supplying defective machinery. The company argued that the consumer was not a consumer and the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was a consumer as he purchased the machinery to eke-out his livelihood by means of self-employment. The court also held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer. 2. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the defective machinery. 4. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was a consumer as he purchased the machinery to eke-out his livelihood by means of self-employment. 2. The court held that the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. 3. The court held that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the defective machinery as the company did not effect any repairs inspite of various letters addressed by the complainants. 4. The court held that the complainant was entitled to compensation as he started his industry with a view to eke out his livelihood.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The opposite party in CD 117/94, District Forum, Karimnagar i.e., Swasthik Engineer, Trissur preferred this appeal questioning the order of the District Forum, where by it directed the opposite party (1) to replace the defective goods with new goods of similar description free from defects on the complainant paying Rs. 57,500/- or refund to the second complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with interest® 18% p.a. from 12.5.93, Rs. 40,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 4.6.93 Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.10.93 and Rs. 10,000/-with interest at @ 18% p.a. from 4.1.94 till the date of payment, (2) to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to the second complainant, and (3) to pay costs of Rs. 500/-.
2. The above complaint was filed by Jagtial Consumers Welfare Council, Jagtial represented by its Secretary and Jagtial Tyres represented by George E. Jocob against the Swasthik Engineering.
3. The case of the complainants was that the second complainant placed an order on 9.11.92 with the opposite party for supply of tyre retreading machine mentioned as items 1 to 6, at a price of Rs. 2,55,000/-. According to the complainant, initially an advance of Rs. 40,000/-was paid on 12.5.93 and the balance was agreed to be paid in instalments and that after taking into account the instalments paid, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was due. But the opposite party sent a bill for Rs. 1,57,500/- instead of Rs. 2,22,500/-. Therefore, the opposite party adopted an unfair trade practice and disruptive method.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that the truck size bonder is not working properly due to the lid not sitting properly and the lifter was not working at the time of lifting of tyres and that there is uneven buffing in the buffing machine and the bed is very hard and is not in a position to move freely at the time of working. The complainant No. 2 wrote letters on 24.11.93 and 4.1.94 to the opposite party. But the opposite party deputed one Mr. A.K. Ravindran a mechanic on 23.12.93. But he could not rectify the defect. It is the case of the complainant that instead of rectifying the defects, and opposite party is insisting upon the payment of Rs. 80,000/-. Due to the negligence of the opposite party in supplying all defective machines, the complainant suffered loss. He, therefore, claimed replacement of the machinery with new machinery or refund of Rs. 1,42,500/-towards the cost of the machinery, interest thereon @ 18% p.a. compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and costs.
5. The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the order was issued at Trissur and the machinery was supplied at Trissur and therefore the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and as the ma chinery was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer.
6. It was also pleaded that the second com plainant purchased the machinery worth Rs. 1,57,500/- as per the bill dated 14.6.93, but paid only Rs. 40,000/- as advance and issued two cheques for Rs. 10,000/- each. Out of these two cheques, one cheque was dishonoured. The second complainant issued another cheque for Rs. 80,000/- but it was returned unpaid. According to the opposite party the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and that they never sent any representative for repairs and the machine is not defective as alleged by the complainant and that the complainant paid only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in all and is bound to pay Rs. 97,500/-. With a view to avoid payment, he came forward with this complaint.
7. The District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer since he purchased goods with a view to eak-out his livelihood by means of self-employment and that as the machinery has to be erected at Jagtial, the Consumer Forum at Karimnagar has to entertain the complaint and hence part of cause of action arose at Jagtial and therefore the District Forum at Karimnagar has jurisdiction to entertain the compla
