Kerala High Court
M/S.Pioneer Motor (Kannur) Pvt.Ltd vs N.Chandran on 2 September, 2008
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25543 of 2003(N)
1. M/S.PIONEER MOTOR (KANNUR) PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. N.CHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, WINSPOT TAILORS
... Respondent
2. M/S. UCAL POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,
3. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
4. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.CHINNAN
For Respondent :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P(C)No.25543 of 2003
==================
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The 1st opposite party in O.P.514/96 before the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, Kannur is the petitioner herein. They are challenging Ext.P4 order of the forum and Ext.P6 order of the Commission was confirmed Ext.P4 in appeal. In that O.P. the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 23,950/- in lieu of replacement of the generator set supplied by the petitioner, Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.750 as costs, which was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P6 order by State Commission. The petitioner's main contention in this case is that the petitioner specifically raised a contention that the 1st respondent herein is not a consumer in so far as he has purchased generator set in question for commercial purpose. The finding of the forum in this regard against the petitioner was specifically challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P5 appeal, which was not considered by the Commission in Ext.P6 order is the contention raised. The Counsel would contend that in so far as the generator set has been purchased for use in the complainant's tailoring shop which the forum held was not W.P(C)No.25543 of 2003 - 2 - earn livelihood by self employment and therefore the complainant is excluded from the purview of definition of 'consumer' in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. From a reading of Ext.P5, I see that the petitioner has raised a specific contention that the 1st respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. In Ext.P4 order an issue was raised as to whether the complainant was a 'consumer' and answered the same in the affirmative. The petitioner specifically challenged the said finding in Ext.P5 appeal. In Ext.P6 there is no consideration of that aspect at all. That being so, I am satisfied that the Commission is liable to consider that contention of the petitioner afresh. Therefore, Ext.P6 is quashed and the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is directed to reconsider appeal No. 214/2002 filed by the petitioner on the specific question as to whether the 1st respondent herein is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs