State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurjeet Singh Son Of Sh.Ranjit Singh, ... vs Eureka Forbes Ltd., Division Sale ... on 6 April, 2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal case No.91/2010
Date of institution: 26.2.2010
Date of
decision :6.4.2010
Gurjeet Singh son of Sh.Ranjit Singh, Proprietor of R.K.Automobiles, SCO
No.396, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.
Appellant
Versus
1] Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
Division Sale Office, SCO No.14, First and Second Floor, Sector 7-C, Madhya
Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.
2] Eureka Forbes Ltd., Area Sale Office, A-34, First Floor,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110040 through its Area Sales Officer.
3] Eureka Forbes Ltd., Registered Office 7, Chakreberia Road
(South), Kolkatta 700025, through its Auth. Representative.
--- Respondents
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer
Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 21.1.2010
passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum- I, U.T.Chandigarh..
Present:
Sh.Varinder Arora, advocate for the appellant.
BEFORE : Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor
(Retd.),Member
Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT
6.4.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1458/2009 was dismissed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.
3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who is the Proprietor of M/s. R.K.Automobiles and engaged in the business of service centre of M/s. Bajaj Auto India Ltd., had purchased one Eureka Forbes Euroclean Power Wash on 4.5.2009 from OP No.1 vide Ann.C-1 and it was carrying warranty of 12 months from the date of its purchase vide Ann.C-2. It was alleged that the said machine just within two weeks of its purchase, started giving problem and then stopped functioning. The complainant lodged a complaint on 22.5.2009 with OPs, in response to which the official of OPs visited the business premises of complainant and assured that the problem would be rectified within a few days but none turned up thereafter to rectify the defect due to which the complainant had to face great hardship and huge loss in business. Complainant then got served a legal notice upon OPs but to no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
4. On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the complainant was not a consumer as the product sold to him was used for commercial purpose i.e. in the service centre being run by complainant having twenty people employed therein. It was stated that the warranty of the product in question clearly stipulated that the warranty was applicable only when the machine was used in normal working conditions in accordance with the Operating Manual.
The complainant did not use the machine in normal working conditions in accordance with the Operating Manual whereas it was used for long period in service centre against its prescribed usage. According to OPs, the machine was not having any problem as the only complaint about the pipe attached to the machine was received from the complainant on 7.6.2009, which was promptly attended to on the same day and the pipe was replaced. It was pleaded that the machine was working perfectly OK and the complaint was attended promptly but inspite of that the complainant illegally demanded the replacement of said machine or refund of its price, so a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the complaint and consequently dismissed the same. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have also gone through the impugned order as well as grounds of appeal and it appears to us that in fact the machine in question was not of such power which could be used in a commercial establishment and as such because of heavy load put on it, same could not stand to the pressure. It is the specific stand of OPs that the complainant is running a business which involves 20 persons. This fact has not been specifically denied by the complainant. However, even in the grounds of appeal it is admitted by the complainant that only a few people are employed at his service centre, but at the same time he did not point out as to how many persons are employed by him in the business.
7. It is further interesting to note that in para-3 of the grounds of appeal the appellant/complainant has specifically indicated that the machine was infact not purchased for domestic purpose. In this view of contradictory stand, we do not find this appeal fit for admission. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 6th April,2010 President Sd/- (Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member Sd/-
(Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member *Js