Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.C. Gupta, S.M. Kantikar, Members
PAL KALA - Appellant
Vs.
RATI PAL AND ANR - Respondent
F.A. No. 84 of 2010
Decided On : 07-06-2018
Narender Bhandari, Adv., Sameer Nandwani, Adv., Bijendra Singh, Adv., Dhruv Wahi, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant, purchasing the machine for business purposes, did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Complaint against excessive charging for photo machine - Section 19 - [Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as the machine was purchased for business purposes and a compromise had been reached between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a photo machine for business purposes and alleged that the seller charged an excessive amount. The seller denied the allegations and claimed that a settlement had been reached in a criminal case filed by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and that a compromise had been made between the parties, thus dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over excessive charging for a photo machine, whether the complainant qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and the impact of a settlement reached in a criminal case on the present complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, purchasing the machine for business purposes, did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the settlement reached in a criminal case on the present complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the complainant was not a 'consumer' as the machine was purchased for business purposes and a compromise had been reached between the parties.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
S.M. Kantikar, Member
1. The instant appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (herein "The State Commission"), wherein the complaint No. 5 of 2007 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that, the complainant, Shripal Kala runs a business in the name of Kala Photo Colour Lab at Jodhpur for his livelihood. After going through the advertisement, he had placed an order for the photo machine "Fuji Frontier 375" for Rs. 69, 00, 000/- from OP-1. The complainant had paid Rs. 2 lakh towards advance and thereafter entire amount of Rs.66, 95, 000/- was paid. The OP issued the bill for payment of Rs. 66, 13, 360/- therefore, as per complainant, he paid excess amount of Rs.81, 640/- to the OP-1. The machine was delivered by the OPs on 25.6.2004 at Jodhpur. Later on, the complainant came to know that the machine was not as per the specifications. The accessories and software were not installed alongwith the machine. The power supply was also faulty, which costed him additional Rs. 3, 00, 000/-. The complainant informed it to the OPs and made several requests but, OPs turn deaf ears towards his request. After considerable delay, one officer of the OP-1, visited the complainant's place, inspected the machine and stated that some parts are required to be repaired. The representative of OPs took away the power supply unit and the CD containing Software alongwith him, thereby putting the complainant in further difficulty. The complainant further alleged that the market value of the machine was about Rs. 40, 00, 000/-, however, OP-1 has recovered Rs.66, 95, 000/- from him. Thus, the OP-1 had illegally charged excessive amount of Rs. 26, 13, 360/- which needs to be refunded. On those grounds, the complainant had filed a complaint before the State Commission and claimed Rs. 87, 48, 360/- from the OPs.
3. The opposite party(s) filed joint written version and denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was false and frivolous. The main objection was that the machine was purchased for business purpose, thus, it was for commercial use. Hence, the complainant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as a 'consumer'. The complainant did not prove that there was a manufacturing defect. The OPs further submitted that there was settlement arrived between the parties in the criminal case filed by the complainant against the OPs. As per the settlement, the OPs had paid Rs.4, 90, 882/- to the complainant on 25.10.2005. Therefore, there was no question of any further refund of Rs.81, 640/- to the complainant. The OPs have never charged excess amount, nor there was any deficiency in service from them.
4. On the basis of pleadings and evidence the State Commission dismissed the complainant observing that the machine was purchased for business purpose and the complainant was not a 'consumer'. Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant filed the instant appeal.
5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. The Learned Counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and submitted that the opposite party(s) indulged into unfair trade practice by charging exorbitantly for the machine than the basic price. The arguments on behalf of the respondent / opposite party No. 1 was that there was no unfair trade practice or cheating to the complainant and there was no deficiency of service also., therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. The Learned Counsel for the opposite party(s), further, submitted that in order to maintain goodwill and reputation, the opposite parties had closed the matter once for all by entering into an agreement and have also paid a sum of Rs.4, 90, 882/- as a
