National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dnyandeo Patiba Bhosale vs Terex Equipments Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. on 12 January, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2122 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 04/12/2015 in Appeal No. 383/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. DNYANDEO PATIBA BHOSALE KHADKI KHANDALA AHMEDNAGAR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TEREX EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. & 3 ORS. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AMIT S/O. BHASKAR DEVKAR SERVICE WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY OFFICE AT 108-110, 1ST FLOOR, NARAIN MANZIL BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI 2. MANAGER TEAM ANGINEERS, AUTHORIZED DEALER OF TEREX EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, NEHA CRYSTAL DYANESHWAR PADUKA CHOWK, F.C. ROAD, PUNE MAHARASHTRA 3. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINEERING LTD., LAXMANRAO KIRLOSKAR MARG, KHADKI PUNE MAHARASHTRA 4. DICKSONS ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 101/36, DENA LAXMI SOCIETY BEHIND BIG BAZAR PREMDANCHOWK SAVEDI, AHMEDNAGAR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 12 Jan 2017 ORDER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision takes exception to order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 04.12.2015 in First Appeal No.A/14/383 vide which the State Commission quashed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner complainant Dnyandeo Patiba Bhosale filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that he is a farmer involved in agriculture work on a big land belonging to his joint family. It is the case of the complainant that he was in need of Terex machine for the development and cultivation of agriculture land. The complainant thus contacted opposite no.4 Dixons Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. , who convinced the complainant that Terex machine manufactured by opposite party no.1 would be suitable for the complainant as its engine was manufactured by opposite party no.3 M/s Kirloskar Oil Engineering Ltd which consumed less diesel than the Terex machine manufactured by other manufacturers. Being convinced by the representation made by opposite party no.2, the complainant approached the manager of opposite party no.1 and received quotation. The complainant purchased Terex machine Terex machine by making total payment of Rs.18,50,000/-. The machine, however, was defective and on the very next day, its lock cable broke. The complainant intimated the opposite parties about the said damage. It is further the case of the complainant that even the representation of the opposite parties regarding lesser consumption of diesel was wrong. On user the Terex machine was found consuming much more diesel than the promised consumption of 4-5 litres of diesel. It is alleged that Terex machine gave persistent trouble and it was taken for repairs on many occasions resulting in financial loss as also mental harassment to the complainant. The complainant thus raised consumer dispute in the District Forum concerned seeking replacement of Terex machine or in the alternative refund of price of machine with interest besides compensation.
3. The respondents on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. Op No.3 took a specific plea that complainant had purchased the machine for commercial purpose, as such, he could not be termed as 'consumer' and consumer complaint was not maintainable on that count alone.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence dismissed the complaint against opposite party no.4 but allowed the complaint against OP No. 1 to 3 with following directions:
"1. The application of the applicant is being allowed partly as mentioned below:
The opponent no.1 to 3 should take the Terex machine no. NL-01-K-2290 back that was purchased by the applicant and should pay its price of Rs.18,50,000/- back to the applicant and also should pay interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from 11.12.2001 i.e. the date when the applicant got the said machine till the date the amount is totally repaid.
2. Opponent no. 1 and 3 should pay to the applicant a sum of Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- to the applicant towards expenditure of this application. They should bear their own cost themselves.
3. The application of the applicant on exhibit -1 against opponent no.4 is being dismissed.
4. A copy of this order be given to the applicant as well as opponent no. 1 to 3 free of cost."
5. The opposite party no. 1 & 2 on being aggrieved of order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission was of the view that complainant had purchased Tererx machine for commercial purpose. As such, he was not a consumer and consumer complaint was wrongly allowed. The State Commission accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
7. Shri Abhishek Krishna, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because there is no cogent evidence on record to show that Terex machine was purchased by complainant for commercial purpose.
8. We do not find merit in this contention. Undisputedly, the Terex machine was purchased by the complainant for huge amount of Rs.18,50,000/-. It is apparent from the record particularly the written statement filed by Op No.3 that a specific plea was taken by the opposite party that petitioner was not a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he had purchased Terex machine for commercial purpose i.e. giving the same on hire. Despite their being specific objection, the complainant did not lead any evidence to show that he was holding agriculture land either in his name or in the name of any of his family members nor the complainant has led any evidence to show that he had taken agriculture land on lease from any land holder for cultivating the same. In absence of any evidence to show that petitioner had any land for cultivation, we do not find any fault with the finding of the State Commission that the Terex machine was not purchased by the complainant for cultivating the land. If that is the case, then the only natural corollary is that machine was purchased by the complainant for giving it on hire. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint.
9. The petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER