Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, P.M and Rekha Gupta, Member
J.C.B. INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RAM KUMAR AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 567 of 2011. (Against the Order dated 03/11/2010 in Appeal No. 882/2010 of the State Commission Haryana).
Decided on : 25-03-2015
Arjun Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; M. Kansal, Advocate and Deepak Girotra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The interpretation of the term 'consumer' in the context of earning livelihood through self-employment and the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - JCB machine - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(d)(i); Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 27] - The court discussed the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the interpretation of the term 'consumer' in the context of earning livelihood through self-employment. The court also considered the delay in filing the appeal and the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. The legal provisions and their interpretations influenced the court's decision to dismiss the revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that the JCB machine purchased from the petitioner was defective and sought its replacement or repair, along with damages for physical and mental pain. The District Forum allowed the complaint, and the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was duly served before the District Forum and that the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable. It also held that the complaint was maintainable as the respondent purchased the JCB machine for earning his livelihood through self-employment.
Issues: Service of notice, condonation of delay, and maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice of the complaint was sent to the petitioner at the correct address, and the delay in filing the appeal was not condonable. It also determined that the complaint was maintainable as the respondent purchased the JCB machine for earning his livelihood through self-employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the impugned order of the State Commission.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, (P.M) - Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 being aggrieved by impugned order dated 03.11.2010 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, 'State Commission') has filed the above noted revision petition.
2. Respondent No.1/Complainant filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short, 'District Forum') on the allegations that he purchased one JCB machine manufactured by petitioner for a sum of Rs. 18,50,593.87P on 26.7.2007. The said machine was delivered to him on 27.7.2007. It is further stated that the said machine was defective from the date of delivery and did not work properly. Complaint was made to the petitioner as well as to Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1. On 29.072007, engineer was deputed who inspected the machine and tried to remove the defects but failed. It is further stated, that on 30.09.2007 another engineer visited the place and tried its level best to remove the defects but the same could not be removed, since there was manufacturing defects in the engine.
Consequently, respondent no.1 filed complaint before the District Forum, praying that defective machine may be replaced with new one and petitioner as well as respondent no.2 be directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- for physical as well as mental pain and harassment.
3. Petitioner as well as respondent no.2 were duly served. Despite service, they did not appear and were proceeded exparte by the District Forum, vide order dated 3.12.2007.
4. District Forum, after considering the affidavit of respondent no.1 and documents filed by him, vide its order dated 09.07.2009, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to repair JCB machine in question and to make it functional to the satisfaction of the complainant, failing which to replace the same with new one of the same description. Opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved, only petitioner filed (First Appeal No. 882 of 2010) before the State Commission. However, no appeal was filed by Respondent No.2.
6. Along with appeal, petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 313 days.
7. State Commission, vide its impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merits,
8. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.1 is carrying on his business for commercial purposes so, the complaint under the Act is not maintainable. Secondly, notice was sent by the District Forum on wrong address and which was never received by the petitioner. Petitioner got the knowledge of the proceedings only when it received notice of execution from the District Forum. Immediately, thereafter appeal was filed before the State Commission and as such there were sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal but State Commission without considering the true facts, wrongly dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Under these circumstances, orders passed by both Fora below are liable to be set aside. In support of his case, petitioner relied upon a decision of this Commission reported as M/s JCB India Ltd. v. M/s Chandan Traders and Ors, (R.P.No.4044 of 2009) decided by this Commission on 19.02.2015.
11. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.1, that petitioner was duly served before the District Forum but did not appear and as such was rightly proceeded exparte. Thereafter, appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was hopelessly barred by limitation and State Commission dismissed the same. Further, respondent no.1 has purchased the JCB machine for his livelihood and for self employment. On this point, learned counsel has relied upon a
