State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. D. Vijay Kumar vs Genesis Poweronics India Pvt Ltd., on 13 February, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.83 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.NO. 178 OF 2017, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I,
HYDERABAD
Between
Dr.D.Vijay Kumar, S/o.D.Rajeshwar,
Aged 42 years, Occ: Doctor,
M/s.Vinayaka ENT Hospital,
Opp. Devishetty Hospital,
Civil Hospital Road,
Karimnagar.
......Appellant/Complainant
And
Genesis Poweronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Venkata Charry, having its office at
A-46 Madhura Nagar, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad.
......Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. R. Sushanth Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party : M/s. P. Narender Reddy
QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI ......PRESIDENT
&
HON'BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE ......MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX
******
Order: (Per Smt.Dr.G.Radha Rani, Hon'ble President)
1.This appeal is filed by the Complainant aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.178/2017 dated 04.12.2019 for dismissing the complaint filed by him.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as Complainant and Opposite Parties 1 & 2 as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
23. The case of the Complainant in brief was that:
(a) The Complainant was an ENT doctor by profession. He was running a hospital under the name and style of M/s.Vinayaka ENT Hospital at Karimnagar. The Respondent/Opposite Party was engaged in the business of selling electrical generators and other accessories etc. The Complainant intended to purchase a generator as standby for the purpose of running the hospital smoothly and informed the same to his brother-in-law by name Ramakrishna.
The said Ramakrishna approached the Opposite Party on 15.09.2015 for purchase of 2.8 KVA Generator and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards advance and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of delivery of the power generator. After issuing the cash receipt, the Opposite Party informed that there was another 5 KVA Generator worth of Rs.1,40,000/- and that the same would work more effectively and efficiently than the generator of 2.8 KVA and offered to sell the same at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- and instigated the Complainant to purchase the said 5 KVA Generator. Believing the version of the Opposite Party, the Complainant purchased the same by paying the balance amount of Rs.90,000/-. The Opposite Party issued cash receipt vide MR.No.178 dated 21.09.2015 in favour of Ramakrishna. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party to issue invoice. The Opposite Party dodged the matter on one pretext or the other and finally issued the invoice on 11.12.2015 and along with the invoice issued cash receipts dated 11.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.90,000 and in fact the Complainant paid the said amounts on 21.09.2015 and 15.09.2015 respectively. The basic purpose of purchasing the 5 KVA power generator from the Opposite Party was to avoid power/electricity complications while performing operations in the operation theatre. The Opposite Party installed 5 KVA generator on 27.09.2015. The Complainant started using it from 27.09.2015 onwards. On the very same day i.e., on 27.09.2015, the said 5 KVA Generator developed technical snag and did not work. Consequently, the Complainant called up the Opposite Party and it was repaired on 19.10.2015. Within a short span of time, the power generator did not work on several occasions and it was 3 repaired by the Opposite Party technicians on 19.10.2015, 17.12.2015, 31.12.2015, 15.02.2016, 10.05.2016 and 14.06.2016 and to that effect a field report was issued to the Complainant. The Complainant never expected such kind of problem from a newly purchased generator. But unfortunately, the power generator supplied by the Opposite Party was creating complications from the date of its installation and the purpose of purchasing the generator had become useless. Due to non-functioning of power generator on several occasions, Complainant postponed the operations and diagnosis etc. The Complainant suffered physical and mental agony and suffered deficiency of service to the patients who came to the hospital. Due to non-functioning of the power generator, the patients of the Complainant had faced severe problems and as a result of which a bad reputation was created on the Complainant's hospital.
(b) He further submitted that on 29.04.2016, when he was conducting operation to his patient by name Mrs. Kanakamma, left ear cortical mastoidectomy, before starting the surgery in the operation theatre, as usual he started power generator and when the Complainant was keenly engaged in the said operation, suddenly there was a power cut and there was no back-up from the power generator due to which the Complainant had faced severe problem in conducting the operation. The reputation of the Complainant was affected due to the non-functioning of the power generator at the crucial time of operation and the same affected the Complainant's profession financially. The Complainant received legal notice dated 15.06.2016 from his patient K.Kanakamma claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages from the Complainant for the failure of operation. The said mistake had crept due to non-functioning of the power generator supplied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had never received such type of notices from his patients. He faced embarrassment due to the non-functioning of power generator. The Complainant issued reply notice dated 24.06.2016 to his client.
(c) He further contended that the Opposite Party lured the Complainant and made him to purchase a defective generator.
4Thus the Opposite Party indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The Complainant issued legal notice on 23.06.2016 to the Opposite Party but had not received any reply. The Complainant issued another legal notice dated 04.08.2016 to the Opposite Party calling upon him to replace the existing power generator with a new power generator or to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service for selling a defective power generator. The Opposite Party issued a reply notice dated 19.08.2016 with all false averments. As such lodged the complaint.
4. The Opposite Party filed written version denying the allegations made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant was more interested to buy a higher capacity generator which would meet his requirements for his operation theatre and other lighting requirements in his hospital. As such he himself opted to buy 5 KVA generator instead of 2.8 KVA DG set. It was neither their business policy nor intention to supply defective DG set to their customers as it was a question of their reputation and goodwill. If the DG set supplied was defective, it would not have run for so many years. Moreover any new equipment was prone to some kind of teething problems till it was diagnosed and rectified. Their technicians found that the DG set was not properly maintained periodically because of which the battery charging alternator unit developed snags and the unit stopped functioning. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Complainant and advised him to maintain the battery charging condition at all times in order to avoid the above problem. The Complainant had not provided shelter to the DG set and negligently exposed the same to sun and rain. Despite his negligence, to continue its customer relation without the principal supplier company approval, the Opposite Party replaced the battery charger and ensured that the DG set would run smoothly without any starting problems. Inspite of continuous advice to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, the Complainant continued to neglect the maintenance and to provide shelter to the equipment. Still the Opposite Party continued to attend the complaints raised by the Complainant and resolved. The legal notice issued by 5 Smt.Kanakamma to the Complainant and in turn the Complainant issuing reply notice was created and invented only for the purpose of filing the present false complaint and denied the said allegations as devoid of truth and baseless. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant was trying to extract money by filing the present complaint so as to succumb the Opposite Party into his way. The Opposite Party further contended that they can only replace the damaged part of the DG set subject to warranty terms and conditions and approval of the principal supplier's company but not the entire DG set under any circumstances mentioned above and it was not possible to pay any damages nor replacement of the DG set as demanded by the Complainant as it was a matter of pure negligence on the part of the Complainant in maintaining the DG set which resulted in the above situation and assured that they would continue the service support in order to run the DG set without breakdowns in future also. They further contended that the Complainant had not chosen the principal supplier company i.e., M/s.Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai as a party to the complaint and due to non-joinder of necessary party, the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the said ground.
5. The Complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got filed the evidence affidavit of his brother-in-law as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A18. The Managing Director of the Opposite Party had filed his evidence affidavit. No documents were marked on their behalf.
6. On considering the material on record, the District Commission framed the following points for determination:
(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer and can maintain the present consumer complaint before this Forum?
(ii) Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
(iii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
(iv) To what relief?6
7. The District Commission answered point No.1 holding that the Complainant was not a Consumer and that he purchased the generator for commercial purpose to use it in the hospital for gaining higher profits. The District Commission also held point No.2 against the Complainant holding that the manufacturer of the product was a proper and necessary party and for non-joinder of him the complaint was not maintainable and in view of the findings on points 1 & 2 held that the Complainant was not entitled for the reliefs prayed by him and dismissed the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the Complainant preferred this appeal contending that:
The District Forum erred in holding the Complainant as not a Consumer. As per Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, the person who chooses the service relating to supply of electrical or other energy is a Consumer.
The District Forum ought to have considered that the Respondent was well aware of the manufacturing defect at the time of selling the same to the Appellant, as the product which was priced at Rs.1,40,000/- was sold to the Appellant for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The plea of not making the manufacturer as a party was taken by the Opposite Party at a very later stage after the evidence was closed. The said objection was not taken even when the Respondent gave a reply to the legal notice.
The District Forum ought to have considered that the Respondent before installing the generator ought to have conducted a thorough check-up about the competency of the power generator and in case of any defect ought to have returned to the principal supplier and could not have sold the defective piece with knowledge to the Appellant.
The District Forum ought to have considered that the Appellant have dealt only with the Respondent for the purchase of power generator and hence there was no 7 necessity for him to make the principal supplier as party to the proceeding and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Commission.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the Complainant Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar for M/s.Sushanth Reddy for the Appellant. There is no representation for the Respondent since 07.07.2022. As such the matter is decided on merits.
10. Now the points for consideration in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the impugned order passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether the same is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
(ii) To what result?
11. Point No.1:
The Complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got filed the evidence affidavit of his brother-in-law as PW2. In his evidence affidavit, the Complainant stated that he was having 15 years of experience as ENT Specialist and was having good practice in the town of Karimnagar and there was inflow of large number of in and out patients daily. His hospital consists of 10 beds and a well-equipped operation theatre for conducting operations. Hence, he intended to purchase a generator as standby for the purpose of running the hospital smoothly without any electrical disturbance and that he purchased the generator from the Opposite Party through his brother-in-law by name Ramakrishna. The brother-in- law of the Complainant had also filed his evidence affidavit as PW2 and supported the contents of the affidavit filed by PW1.
Ex.A1 is the photocopy of cash receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 15.09.2015.
Ex.A2 is the photocopy of cash receipt for Rs.90,000/- dated 21.09.2015 issued by the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party.8
Ex.A4 & A5 are the original cash receipts for Rs.90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively, dated 11.12.2015 issued to the Vinayaka ENT Hospital.
Ex.A3 is the invoice for the supply of 5 KVA Paikane Make DG set of model 15LD440 for an amount Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the authorized signatory of the Opposite Party. Ex.A6 to A13 are the Field Service Reports dated 19.10.2015, 17.12.2015, 31.12.2015, 15.02.2016, 10.05.2016, 14.06.2016, 27.07.2016, 29.07.2016 respectively, which would show the complaints raised by the Complainant with the Opposite Party with regard to non-functioning of the generator and the technicians of the Opposite Party visiting and giving their remarks like battery charger and fuel return pipe replaced, diesel pipe changed, the battery found discharged due to battery charger burnt and dismantling the battery and carried to Exide Service Point for charging purpose and refitting the recharged battery and starting the DG set.
Ex.A14 is the legal notice issued to the Complainant by a patient by name K.Kanakamma dated 15.06.2016 through a counsel by name T.Pavan Kumar.
Ex.A15 is the reply notice given by the Complainant to the counsel Sri T.Pavan Kumar dated 24.06.2016 wherein the Complainant stated that there was no medical negligence on his part but admitted that during the operation there was lack of power support from the generator.
Ex.A16 is the legal notice given by the counsel for the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 23.06.2016. Ex.A17 is the postal receipt along with acknowledgement. Ex.A18 is the reply notice given by the Opposite Party to the counsel for the Complainant.
12. The affidavits of PW1 & 2 and the documents marked under Ex.A1 to A18 would disclose the frequent repairs to the generator and though they were stated to be rectified by the technicians, they were occurring recurrently and the profession of the Complainant was also affected due to the said problem for lack of power during 9 the conducting of operations and the Complainant receiving legal notices from his patients.
13. The main point on which the District Commission rejected the complaint was on the ground that the generator purchased by the Complainant/Doctor was for commercial use, as such he cannot be considered as a Consumer. Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines a Consumer as:
The Consumer means any person who -
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment.
14. An exception was included in the definition of Consumer under sub-clause (ii) by way of Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 with effect from 15.03.2003 vide SO 270(E), dated 10.03.2003 excluding a person who avails such services for any commercial purpose and an explanation was provided stating that the commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively 10 for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self- employment.
15. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 wherein while considering the definition of 'Consumer' and explaining the meaning of 'commercial purpose' it was held that:
11: "Now coming back to the definition of the expression „consumer‟ in Section 2(d), a consumer means insofar as is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, (i) a person who buys any goods for consideration; it is immaterial whether the consideration is paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or whether the payment of consideration is deferred; (ii) a person who uses such goods with the approval of the person who buys such goods for consideration; (iii) but does not include a person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The expression „resale‟ is clear enough. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression "commercial purpose". It is also not defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning. „Commercial „ denotes "pertaining to commerce" (Chamber‟s Twentieth Century Dictionary): it means "not connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim" (Collines English Dictionary) whereas the word „commerce‟ means "financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale" (Conscise Oxford Dictionary). The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods "with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit" he will not be a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion - the expression "large scale" is not a very precise expression - Parliament stepped in and added the explanationto Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance/Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression "commercial purpose" - a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate: a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others‟ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situations, purchase of goods for "commercial purpose" would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression „consumer‟. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a „consumer‟. In the illustration given above, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self-employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a "commercial 11 purpose" and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. The explanation reduces the question, what is a "commercial purpose", to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The several words employed in the explanation, viz., "uses them by himself", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self- employment" make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood. A few more illustrations would serve to emphasise what we say. A person who purchases an auto-rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. Similarly, a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer. A person who purchases a lathe machine or other machine to operate it himself for earning his livelihood would be a consumer. (In the above illustrations, if such buyer takes the assistance of one or two persons to assist/help him in operating the vehicle or machinery, he does not cease to be a consumer). As against this a person who purchases an auto-rickshaw, a car or a lathe machine or other machine to be plied or operated exclusively by another person would not be a consumer. This is the necessary limitation flowing from the expressions "use by him", and "by means of self-employment" in the explanation. The ambiguity in the meaning of the words "for the purpose of earning his livelihood" is explained and clarified by the other two sets of words." 21: We must, therefore, hold that:
(i) The explanation added by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance 24 of 1993) with effect from 18-6-1993 is clarificatory in nature and applies to all pending proceedings.
(ii) Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a "commercial purpose" within the meaning of the definition of expression „consumer‟ in Section 2(d) of the Act is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.
(iii) A person who buys goods and uses them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment is within the definition of the expression „consumer‟.
16. He also further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Rampion Pharmaceuticals Vs. Dr. Preetam Shah 1997 SCC Online NCDRC 1 wherein a medical practitioner, an eye surgeon purchased an Ultrasonic Pachy Meter lodged a complaint stating that the machine was defective and did not serve the purpose which was bought by him and the District Commission allowed the complaint and the State Commission of Maharashtra had also upheld the same and the Appellants have taken a 12 contention that the machine was purchased for a commercial purpose and therefore not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the Hon'ble NCDRC dismissed the appeal and agreed with the view taken by the State Commission that the machine was purchased not for commercial purpose but to pursue the professional activities by the Complainant/Respondent, in the nature of self-employment.
17. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering works lays down the 'dominant purpose test' whether the goods are used for commercial exploitation or self-employment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, ESI Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579 also held that medical services are not commercial services in the traditional sense. The Hon'ble NCDRC in the above case relied by the learned counsel for the Appellant held that "purchase of a equipment by a doctor for use in his clinic does not amount to commercial purpose if it is for rendering medical services personally."
18. From the above citations, it is clear that the doctor running a clinic and using equipment as an aid to professional practice can be considered as a consumer and not a commercial buyer, as the dominant purpose is rendering medical services personally. As the affidavit filed by the Complainant would disclose that the generator was purchased for its use to ensure uninterrupted power during surgeries, consultations and diagnosis and to run the lights, fans and basic medical equipment for the clinic or hospital run by him personally and the generator is ancillary/supportive to his medical practice, the same can be considered as a professional use, but not for trade or commerce.
19. If a generator is supplied to a large corporate hospital, multi- speciality hospital run on profit oriented, industrial scale and the doctor is not personally rendering services but merely an investor or employer and the generator is part of large infrastructure set-up 13 and used for revenue generating commercial activity, then it can be treated as a commercial purpose.
20. As the Complainant doctor is personally practicing and the generator is essential for the safety of the patients while conducting operations in theatre, it would fall within the exception of self-employment for the purpose of the clause 'commercial purpose'.
21. As such, we consider that the District Commission committed an error in rejecting the complaint by considering the Complainant as not a consumer and the generator purchased was for commercial purpose.
22. The citations relied by the learned District Commission was the judgment of a Karnataka Consumer Forum in Looks Vs. Carrier Aricon Ltd., and others III (1997) CPJ 83 (Kar.) which was with regard to the purchase of an Air Conditioner by a consumer for her showroom.
23. The judgment of the Hon'ble NCDRC in Kusum Bakshi, Ahlawat Vs. G.P.Singh, Manager, Administration & Ors. II (1993) CPJ 1135 (Haryana) is in favour of the Complainant wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC considered whether a self-employed medical professional's purchase of equipment for his clinical requirements was for a commercial purpose and held that:
"15: Now while applying and elaborating the aforesaid three tests, what deserves highlighting is the distinction between a trade and a profession. It is true that at some level, the dividing line may be somewhat thin, but there is no gain saying the fact that the two occupations are somewhat separate and distinct. A professional uses his inherent acquired talent in practicing the same either to earn a livelihood or to advance himself in life. Such activity is a shade apart from a trading manufacture or sale in goods or commodities. As has already been noticed, the recent trend of precedent has sharply veered over in favour of self-employed persons even where they are engaged in directly profit making activities. However, where a person is engaged in his particular profession for earning his livelihood and is self-employed, then he obviously stands on the highest pedestal in this context. It would be somewhat manifest that a doctor practising the noble profession of 14 medicine for his livelihood would be obviously in this class and very near to its apex."
16: "The scale of profit making activity is then an equally important factor. As already noticed binding precedent now lays down that to bring in the exclusion clause of a commercial purpose, such activity must on a very large scale. It is true that it may be not always easy to draw a line in the grey area where an activity may closely verge on that large scale. However, it is somewhat manifest that a medical professional running his own clinic cannot possibly or in any case easily be labelled that he is indulging in the profit making activity on a very large scale. Perhaps it deserves reiteration that the practice of medicine by a professional may not in terms be labeled as a pristinely profit making activity at all. But even assuming it to be so, a nursing home or a clinic by a single or two professionals together would not come within the purview of large scale profit making, activity."
17: "Lastly the direct nexus test between the use of goods and the actual profit making activity is equally relevant in this context. In the present day world most activities may have an economic or profit motive. But the test as laid is that a merely indirect connection is not enough and what is crucial is the factum of a direct and close nexus between the use of goods and the profit making activity. In the present context, where a diagnostic scanner is used by a non- professional for charging fees for scanning clientage generally the same could possibly be labelled as a direct nexus to the profit making activity. However, where a medical professional uses the scanner for his personal purpose for diagnosing the disease of the patient in his clinic and does not directly levy charges for such scanning the connection between the use and the profit making activity is totally difused if not virtually cut off. In the present case the Complainant has put in a specific affidavit averring that the scanner was purchased for personal use to help her in diagnosing the patients properly and for which they charged nothing extra from the patients. It follows that generality apart in the particular case, the absence of a direct nexus is thus patent."
18: "In fairness to the learned counsel for the Opposite Party, his reliance on precedent may be adverted to M/s.Curewell Hospital Pvt.Ltd., Vs. M/s.Kohli Medical Cases Pvt.Ltd., (Supra) was plainly a case where the Complainant far from being a professional was indeed a private limited company engaged obviously in the profit making activity. The case is thus plainly on a different footing. Again in „G.S.Ranganath Vs. The Chairman M/s.Miles India Ltd., also the purchaser was the Maleswaram X-ray Clinic and Laboratory Pvt.Ltd., through its Managing Director. Clearly that was also a Corporation which admittedly used the purchased equipment for testing the patients by charging Rs.50/- per head. This case is equally of no avail to the Opposite Party. Lastly M/s.Amar Medical Hall Vs. Moti Ram, Advocate (Supra), as already noticed was merely relied upon by way of analogy and had no direct bearing on the issue."
20: "In the light of the aforesaid ratio, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Opposite Parties must fail and is consequently rejected."
1524. The above judgment and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Estate is in favour of the Complainant. The District Commission misinterpreting these judgments and holding that the Complainant cannot claim to be a consumer and cannot maintain the Consumer Complaint was against the binding precedents and shows lack of judicial understanding.
25. The other contention on which the District Commission rejected the complaint was with regard to non-joinder of manufacturer as necessary party to the complaint. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tata Motors Ltd., Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz & Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 125 and also in Savitha Garg (Smt) Vs. Director, National Heart Insitute, 2004 (8) SCC 56, wherein by referring to Order-1 Rule-9 and Order-1 Rule-10 of the CPC, it was held that -
9: "No suit shall fail because of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties and that it can proceed against the persons who are parties before the court. Even the court has power under Order-1 Rule-10(4) to give a direction to implead a person who is a necessary party. Therefore, even if after the direction given by the Commission the doctor concerned and the nursing staff who were looking after the deceased have not been impleaded as Opposite Parties, it cannot result in dismissal of the original petition as a whole."
10: "The Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better protection in the interest of the consumers and not to short circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on technical grounds."
26. Thus, as seen from the above cases, there is no statutory mandate that a consumer should file a complaint against all the manufacturer, seller, dealer and service provider. If the complaint can be effectively adjudicated against a dealer/seller/service provider alone and if effective relief is possible without joining the manufacturer as a party, he need not be made as a party. A manufacturer is usually a proper party but not a necessary party. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Skypack Couriers Limited Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2005) SCC 294 held that: "the Consumer complaint cannot be dismissed on technical grounds like non-
16joinder of a party when deficiency can be examined against the impleaded Opposite Party. Procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice in consumer proceedings. Non-joinder of manufacturer is not fatal when dealer who sold the defective goods is equally liable. The non-joinder of manufacturer is only a curable irregularity and the District Consumer Forum ought to have impleaded him as a party suomotu if it considers the manufacturer as a necessary party. The dismissal of the complaint on the said ground defeats the very object of the Act. As the dealer is competent to answer all the above allegations and the dealer had control over supply or warranty obligation and could represent the manufacturer and the relief sought is for replacement of the defective generator with a new power generator and claiming damages from the dealer for selling a defective power generator, the non-joinder of the manufacturer would not affect the case.
27. As the generator supplied by the Opposite Party/dealer stated giving problems from the very date of installation and the several attempts for repair within a short span of few months after its installation proves that the product is not of merchantable quality and it is not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased because of its chronic performance failure. As such, even without expert evidence from the service records itself, it can be held that the defect is evident. As the repairs conducted by the technicians of the Opposite Party/dealer could not permanently solve the issue and the generator was unusable repeatedly and the Complainant lost confidence in the product and he cannot be compelled to accept continuous repairs and suffered inconvenience in carrying out his profession and was also facing consumer cases against him, we consider it fit to allow the appeal and to direct the Opposite Party to replace the generator.
28. Point No.2:
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission-I, Hyderabad in CC.No.178/2017 dated 04.12.2019. The Opposite Party is directed to replace the 5KVA 17 power generator with a new 5 KVA power generator and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant along with costs of Rs.10,000/-
to the Complainant. Time for compliance is four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Court on this the 13th day of February, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER-NJ
Dt: 13.02.2026
UC*