Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi & Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Members
SWASTHIK ENGINEER—Appellant
versus
JAGTIAL CONSUMERS WELFARE COUNCIL & ANR.—Respondents
F.A. No. 24 of 1995 — Decided on 6.8.1996
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. K.C. Viswembharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V. Gourisankar Rao, Advocate.
A consumer is entitled to refund of the amount paid for defective goods, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and costs if the seller fails to rectify the defects despite several requests.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d) - JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - REFUND - DEFECTIVE GOODS - COMPENSATION - CONSUMER FORUM - INTERPRETATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT FORUM - REFUND OF AMOUNT PAID FOR DEFECTIVE GOODS - COMPENSATION FOR MENTAL AGONY AND HARASSMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a consumer, purchased a tyre re-treading machine from the opposite party. The machine was found to be defective and the opposite party failed to rectify the defects despite several requests. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Karimnagar, seeking refund of the amount paid for the machine, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum held that the complainant was a consumer and that the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It also held that the opposite party was liable to refund the amount paid for the machine, pay compensation for mental agony and harassment, and pay costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the District Forum, Karimnagar, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? 3. Whether the opposite party is liable to refund the amount paid for the defective machine? 4. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment? 5. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay costs?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he purchased the machine for the purpose of self-employment. 2. The court held that the District Forum, Karimnagar, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. 3. The court held that the opposite party was liable to refund the amount paid for the defective machine as it failed to rectify the defects despite several requests. 4. The court held that the opposite party was liable to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment as the complainant suffered due to the defective machine. 5. The court held that the opposite party was liable to pay costs as it failed to rectify the defects in the machine.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
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, whereby 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 at 18% p.a. from 12.5.93, Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 4.6.93, Rs.10,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 15.10.1993 and Rs.10.000/-with interest at 18% p.a. from 4.1.94 till the date of payment, (2) topayRs.25,000/- towards compensation to the second complainant, and (3) to pay costs of Rs. 500/-.
2. The above complaint was filed by Jagtial Consumer 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 re-treading 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 under 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 machanic on 23.12.93. But he could not rectify the defect. It is the case of the complainant that instead of rectifying the defects, the 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 at 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and costs.
5. The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the order was sued at Trissur and the machinarey was supplied at Trissur and therefore the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as the machinery was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer.
It was also pleaded that the second complainant 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.
6. The District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer since he purchased goods with a view to eke-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 complaint
