Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Vijai Varma, Presiding Member, Raj Kamal Gupta, Member
Abhishek Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Piyush Jain & Anr. - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. A/2000/2328
Decided On : 23-01-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Arun Tandan, Advocate.
The court established the liability of the appellant for the deficiency in service and clarified the complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Dispute - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o) - The court discussed the issues related to the complainant's status as a consumer, the responsibility for the deficiency in service, and the liability of the appellant. The court found that the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and that the appellant was responsible for the deficiency in service to a certain extent. The court modified the compensation and held that the responsibility of repairing the machine would rest only on OP No. 2.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a photo copier machine which was found to be faulty. The appellant denied responsibility for the deficiency in service and claimed that the complainant had not paid the entire cost of the machine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant qualified as a consumer and had paid the entire cost of the photo copier machine. The appellant was held responsible for the deficiency in service to a certain extent.
Issues: The issues included the complainant's status as a consumer, the responsibility for the deficiency in service, and the liability of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and that the appellant was responsible for the deficiency in service to a certain extent.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the responsibility of repairing the machine was amended to rest only on OP No. 2. The compensation and award for mental harassment were modified, with a portion payable by the appellant and the rest by OP No. 2.
ORDER :
Vijai Varma, Presiding Member
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2000, passed by the District Forum-I, Moradabad in complaint case No. 195 of 1998.
The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had purchased a photo copier machine manufactured by the respondent/OP No. 2. After 2 days of its purchase the complainant informed the appellant/OP No. 1 that the machine was not working properly whereupon the OP No. 1 assured that an engineer will come within a day or two on informing the OP No. 2. Thereafter, the machine was taken by the OP No. 1 and was sent to Delhi for repairs and it was returned back to the complainant on 20.8.1997 by the OP No. 1 saying that the machine has been fully repaired but again on 21.8.1997, the complainant complained about the machine which was not working properly then he was told that the machine will be sent to Delhi. The complainant, thereafter, waited for many months but the machine was not repaired despite the complainant making contacts with the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant got back his machine from the OPs and found that the some plate was missing from the photo copier machine. The photo copier machine was purchased by the complaint for earning his livelihood but because of faulty machine he had to suffer financial loss and hence, he filed a case before the Forum below wherein the appellant/OP No. 1 filed the WS mentioning therein that he is merely a dealer of the Richo India Ltd. photo copier machine and was not the dealer of any other Company. On the demand of the consumer, he merely made the machine available to the consumer for which the responsibility rests with the Company only. The complainant had merely paid Rs. 20,000.00 for the machine and despite demanding the balance amount the complainant had not paid any amount. With regard to the default in the photostate machine, it was the responsibility of the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 did not appear. Thereafter, the learned Forum passed the order on 21.8.2000.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the appellant was not the dealer of the respondent No. 2 and that his services were confined till the supply of the machine in question. The complainant had filed the complaint against the appellant/OP No. 1 with the intention of grabbing the balance amount of the appellant. The photo copier was not purchased for self-employment of the complainant. He had not committed any deficiency in service but still the learned Forum had passed the order against the facts and evidence therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
3. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire records. In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a photo copier machine from the appellant/OP No. 1. The disputed point according to the appellant is that the complainant had not made payment of the entire cost of the machine and for avoiding to make balance payment, this complaint has been falsely filed against the appellant. Another disputed point is that the appellant was not the dealer of the maker of the photo copier supplied to the complainant and hence, he was not liable for any alleged deficiency in service. Another disputed point is that the complainant was not the consumer as he did not purchase the photo copier for self employment. So the following issues arise in this case.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not, if so, its effect.
2. Whether the appellant was responsible for the deficiency in service for faulty machine which was merely supplied by him as he was not authorized the dealer of the photo copier machine.
3. Whether the complainant had falsely implicated in this case as he had not paid the entire cost of the machine and he wanted to grab the balance amount of the appellant. If so, its effect.
4. We first take the point as to whether the complainant is a consumer o
