National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shind Engineering Industries vs J.S. Birdi & Sons, Ludhina on 19 March, 2002
ORDER J.K. Mehra, Member, J.
1. This case has been received after remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notices were given to the parties. There has been no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. They have also been served in substituted manner, still they are unrepresented. In these circumstances, we have heard the arguments on behalf of the Appellant.
2. Some of the salient facts noticed in the impugned order were that the complaint was barred by limitation because Section 24 A provides for two years limitation. In this case, we have noticed that cause of action arose on 3..7.91 in favour of the Complainant when the period of limitation available to the Complainant was three years. Complaint was filed on 10.2.94 within the prescribed period of three years. The amendment whereby Section 24A was enacted came into force on 18.6.93. That will not be taking away the right of the Complainant to file the complaint. The State Commission should have considered the circumstances which enabled the Complainant to file the complaint. The bar of limitation accordingly would not stand in the way of this complaint.
3. The next question that came for consideration is that the machines which were purchased by the Complainant on 23.6.90 and 15.1.91 respectively did not function satisfactorily. During the warranty periods, complaints were lodged with the manufacturer who was the prescribed party from whom the Complainant was made to acquire the machines at the instance of the Punjab Financial Corporation. The Respondent did not honour their commitments under the terms of warranty as a consequence whereof, the Complainant had to incur substantial expenses in getting machines repaired. The complaints regarding the non-functioning of the machines were lodged and some of those were issued on 18.2.91, 24.4.91 and so on. The Complainant had incurred a total expenses of Rs. 3,37,015.70 in getting the machines repaired, apart from incurring interest liability on the amount which he borrowed from the Punjab Financial Corporation to get the machines repaired and to that extent we feel that the Respondent is liable. It should have honoured its commitment to repair the machines or to re-compensate the complainant to the extent of expenses incurred in getting those machines repaired.
4. Before giving final directions, we would also like to deal with the ground that the complaint was rejected by the State Commission holding that complainant was not a consumer. It is stated at the bar that the machines are being operated by the Complainant and his son and they did not employ and other staff and in that way machines are being used for self-employment which clearly bring them within the definition of term "consumer" as this activity is for the Complainant and his son for earning their livelihood. Therefore, the finding of the State Commission in this behalf is set aside. Accordingly, in the light of above discussions, we hold that the Appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,37,051.17 together with interest @ 9% from 1.1.93 till the date of payment. The Appellant shall also be entitled for cost which we assess at Rs. 3,000/-. First Appeal is disposed of.