State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, J.K. Tyres And Industries Ltd vs Gaiitri Devi & Anr. on 7 January, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 212/2013.
Date of Presentation: 16.08.2013.
Date of Decision: 07.01.2014.
..................................................................................
Manager,
J.K. Tyres and Industries Ltd.,
J.L.L.U., Bamana,
C/o Din Dayal Kuthiala,
Near Government School, Barmana,
District Bilaspur-174013 (H.P.),
Through its authorized signatory
Shri Rahul Chak (Service Engineer).
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Smt. Gaiitri Devi, W/o Sh. Nagender,
R/o Village Lunarad, P.O. Randhara,
Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. Mandi Automobiles,
Dealer of J.K. Tyres,
Bharat Petroleum Lubricant,
Near Petrol Pump, Sauli Khad,
Mandi (H.P.),
Through its Manager.
... Respondents.
........................................................................................
...............
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: None.
............................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed by J.K. Tyres & Industries, through its Manager, against the order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Manager, J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. vs. Gaiitri Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.212/2013) 09.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Gaitri Devi against the appellant & M/s. Mandi Automobiles, impleaded as respondent No.2, has been allowed and direction given to the appellant as also respondent No.2 to replace the tyres purchased by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2, within a period of twenty days or to refund the price of the tyres amounting to `16,700/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay `4,000/- as compensation and `2,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that she had purchased two tyres for a bus, which she owned, for a consideration of `16,700/-, from respondent No.2, on 12.06.2012 and that within one month of the purchase of the tyres, the same became unserviceable. She lodged a complaint with respondent No.2 as also the present appellant, who is the manufacturer of the tyres, but there was no positive response. So, she claimed the refund of the price of the tyres as also compensation, by filing complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Manager, J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. vs. Gaiitri Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.212/2013)
3. Complaint was contested by appellant as also respondent No.2 and one of the grounds raised by them was that since tyres had been purchased for use in a commercial vehicle, respondent-complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No rejoinder was filed by the respondent- complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint holding that the tyres were defective. While dealing with the plea of the appellant and respondent No.2 that the respondent No.1-complainant was not a consumer, learned District Forum has stated that the appellant and respondent No.2 have not produced any evidence showing that he, in fact, is not a consumer.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as also the counsel for respondent No.1 and gone through the record.
6. Admittedly, the tyres were purchased by respondent-complainant for her bus, which she uses for commercial purpose. That means, the tyres were purchased for commercial purpose. Respondent-complainant did not plead that she had been using the bus for earning her livelihood by self-employing herself. Not only this, she did not take such a plea even when the appellant and the other Manager, J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. vs. Gaiitri Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.212/2013) respondent very categorically stated in their replies that she was not a consumer as the tyres were purchased by her for commercial purpose (for being used in the bus, which was registered as public service vehicle).
7. It is well settled that it is for the complainant who purchases goods for commercial purpose to aver and prove that though the goods were purchased for commercial purpose, she was to earn livelihood, by self-employing herself, by putting those goods to commercial purpose. In the present case, respondent-complainant having not said even a word about this plea, she cannot be said to be a consumer for the purpose of seeking redressal of her grievance under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent No.1-Gaitri Devi is dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Manager, J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. vs. Gaiitri Devi & Anr. (F.A. No.212/2013) Member January 07, 2014.
DC Dhiman)