Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member and M.K. Abdulla Sona, Member
K. KOMALAVALLY - Appellant
Versus
TELCO, ZONAL SERVICE OFFICE, COCHIN AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 852 of 2002
Decided on : 15-03-2010
Mr. S. Reghukumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. N. Muraleedharan Nair, Advocate, Menon and Menon, Advocate, for the Respondent
A person who availed service for commercial purpose is to be considered a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer - Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged deficiency in service by the manufacturer and dealer of a vehicle purchased by the complainant. The forum below dismissed the complaint, finding the complainant not to be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant, who purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose, is to be considered a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, as the defects in the vehicle developed during the warranty period.
Issues: Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing that a person who availed service for commercial purpose is to be considered a consumer, and held that the complainant falls within this definition.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the forum below for fresh consideration and disposal.
ORDER
M.V. Viswanathan, Judicial Member - The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No. 569/2002. In fact the complaint was numbered as OP 569/99 and by mistake in the impugned order the year of institution of the complaint No. 569 has been shown as 2002. The correct year of institution is 1999. In effect impugned order has been passed in OP No. 569/99. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 namely the manufacturer and dealer of the vehicle Tata Sumo which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party was the manufacturer of the tyres of the disputed vehicle Tata Sumo. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version contending that there was no manufacturing detect and that the complainant Smt. K. Komalavally is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also contended that the complainant Smt. K. Komalavally is employed in KSEB and so she cannot be considered as the consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and witnesses from the opposite parties 1 and 2 were examined as DWs 1 and 2. An expert Commissioner was also appointed to inspect the disputed vehicle. The expert Commissioner submitted C1 commission report. He was examined before the Forum below as CW1. On the side of the complainant A1 to A5 documents and that on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2 B1. B2 series and B3 documents were marked. The Forum below formulated the following point:
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer coming within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act
(2) Whether there was no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties
(3) Reliefs and costs
3. The Forum below considered the 1st point as a preliminary point and it was found that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. So, the other points have not been considered by the Forum below. On the basis of the finding on point 1 (preliminary point) the complaint was dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein.
4. We heard the Counsel for the appellant/complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2). The Counsel for the 3rd respondent (3rd opposite party) was also heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed for the position that the defects in the vehicle developed during the warranty period and so the complainant who alleged deficiency in service is to be considered as a consumer, even though the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. He also relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in East India Construction Co. and Another v. Modern Consultancy Services and Others, reported in (2006) 2 CPJ 289 (NC). He also relied on C1 Commission report and argued for the position that the defects in the vehicle developed during warranty period. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
5. The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the appellant/complainant in OP 569/99 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam can be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The point:
6. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased the Tata Sumo vehicle from the respondents 1 and 2 being the manufacturer and dealer of the said vehicle and that the said purchase was effected on 18.8.1997: Ext. A4 letter dated 18.9.1997 issued by the complainant K. Komalavally to the 2nd opposite party dealer of the vehicle would make it clear that the complainant raised the defects in the vehicle with respect to the unusual wear and tear of the tyres provided for the said vehicle. Ext. B2 series job cards would also support the
