National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Halda Office Systems Pvt.Ltd. vs Bapuji Institute Of Engineering on 24 February, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 478 OF
2012
(From the order dated 09.11.2011 in Appeal No.3202/2011
of the State
Commission, Karnataka)
M/S HALDA OFFICE SYSTEMS PVT.LTD.
NO.11-B, KIADB,
HOSKOTE INDUSTRIAL AREA
HOSKOTE,
BANGALORE - 562114
KARNATAKA
Petitioner
Versus
BAPUJI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY
SHAMANURU ROAD
DAVANGERE 577004
KARNATAKA
(THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
MR.B.T. ACHUTHA) Respondent
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
For
the Petitioner : Mr.
R. Ramachandran, Advocate with
Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate
Pronounced on : 24th
day of February, 2012
ORDER
PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed this revision challenging order dated 9.11.2011, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short State Commission), vide which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed at the admission stage itself.
2. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant is a Technical Educational Institution which is non-commercial enterprise. The institute having requirement of the computer chairs obtained quotation for 300 Halda chairs from the petitioner and asked him to supply these chairs.
3. Respondent asked the petitioner to give warranty of two years for the said chairs. Petitioner agreeing for all these terms and conditions, dispatched 300 chairs on 15.4.2009. Respondent had given amount of Rs.6,60,000/- for the said chairs.
4. It is alleged by respondent that base of some of the chairs broke down. Accordingly, petitioner was informed regarding broken down of the base of the chairs. Petitioner, thereafter replaced the base of 15 broken chairs. Thereafter, while using remaining chairs also started to break down. When the said chairs were examined the base of these chairs were defective and it was found that they were also breaking. Respondent on 5.10.2010, wrote letter to the petitioner informing him that the base of the chairs sent by them has been broken and requested to replace them with new chairs.
4. Petitioner in written reply informed the respondent that since base of the chairs have been manufactured with plastic, though there is a warranty period for the chairs but there is no warranty for the base of the plastic.
Thus, petitioner had given defective chairs to the respondent and there is deficiency of service.
5. Petitioner did not appear before the District Forum, inspite of service and as such was proceeded exparte.
6. District Forum, while allowing the complaint partly held ;
" 1. Complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
2. Ordered that the respondent shall take back 285 chairs from the complainant and give good quality of non-defective new chairs of similar model within one month form this order or amount of Rs.6,27,000/- the cost of the chair together with interest at 9% from the date of amount given by the complainant until realization shall be given.
3. The respondent shall give compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the hardship caused to the complainant.
4. The respondent shall give Rs.1,500/- towards cost of this complaint to the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is not a consumer, as such complaint itself is not maintainable. Since, chairs ordered from the petitioner were being used for students in the institution of the respondent, it clearly shows that purchased chairs are not put to self-use by the respondent, therefore he is not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( for short as Act )
9. Other contention is that both the Fora below have wrongly ordered replacement of entire 300 chairs merely on the basis of unreliable and un-approved opinion of an alleged expert, who in fact is a competitor to the petitioner. The alleged expert is also not a recognized/ approved/authorized testing agency by any government authority.
10. In support, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S. G. Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC, 1428 .
11. District Forum, in its order has held ;
The statement of the complainant that when the complainant started to use that chairs, the base of the chairs were broken down, and informed regarding base of the chairs broken to the respondent, the respondent had replaced base of 15 chairs can be admitted. The statement of the complainant even the remaining chairs were broken down, so the complainant asked the respondent to replace the chairs, can be admitted and from the record produced Ex.P. A.4, the same thing appeared. Found that the remaining chairs used by the complainant has been breaking down. The base of the chairs found to be defective, so the complainant told to the respondent to take back 300 chairs and to replace and give new chairs and for that the respondent refused to do so. This can be admitted from the records produced, it is found that when the complainant using the chairs, the chairs given by the respondent went on breaking down as they used, so asked to replace those chairs. For that the respondent refused to replace.
These can be admitted from the records produced. To prove that the basement of the chairs is defective, the complainant obtained the report from Ganesh S.Maganahalli of the company/agency known Geometry manufacturing chairs of the said model. According to the report given by the said company, the plastic used to manufacture the base of the chair were defective. From all the above reasons, it clearly appears that the base of the chairs given by the respondent to the complainant were defective. But, the complainant themselves stated that 15 chairs were replaced by the respondent as stated by them, and they were in proper condition. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that it is suitable and appropriate to replace and give new chairs for the remaining 285 chairs by the respondent. For all the above reasons, the chairs given by the respondent to the complainant are defective, though there is warranty, the respondent have not replaced the chairs and have not given new chairs, so we come to the conclusion that this amounts to deficiency of service caused by the respondent, the complainant are entitled to get compensation.
12. State Commission, while upholding the order of District Forum observed ;
10. We have carefully examined the order under challenge. Since the respondent placed the order for supply of 300 computer operating chairs and within few months from the date of supply, they were broken. The evidence of the complainant and the report submitted by the expert clearly indicates that, there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the chairs supplied by the appellant. Apart from that, in spite of receipt of the notice, the appellant herein either appeared in person or through counsel and even the appellant has not produced any medical records to show that he was bedridden when the notice was received by the security staff. The appellant has not produced the evidence of the security staff who has received it, he might have informed their Managers and other staff about the receipt of the notice. No such information is disclosed by the appellant. After receipt of the copy of the order, he approached this Commission to set aside the order. In spite of letter written by the respondent informing about the defect noticed in the chairs supplied, the reply sent to the respondent is vague which amounts to refusal to replace or to refund the amount. Therefore, we dont find any perverse or incorrect finding and the appellant has not shown any prima-facie to entertain this appeal.
13. Petitioner in this case did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and as such was proceeded exparte. Therefore, averments made in the complaint filed before the District Forum remains un-rebutted.
14. This question as to whether respondent is a consumer or not has been raised for the first time before us. This plea was not taken even in the grounds of appeal filed before the State Commission.
15. Be that as it may, respondent which is an educational institute, has purchased 300 chairs from the petitioner for use in its institute. As per respondents case, it is not a commercial institute and chairs are being regularly used in various departments of the institute. It is not the case of respondent that these chairs were purchased for any commercial purposes.
16. In Laxmi Engineering Works( supra) Honble Supreme Court has held ;
( 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 .
17. In the present case, chairs were purchased for the use of students in an educational institution. There is no evidence that chairs were purchased on behalf of the respondent for commercial purposes. Moreover, petitioner has admittedly replaced 15 chairs out of 300 defective chairs. This itself shows the deficiency on the part of the petitioner.
18. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act. It is well settled that powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
19. Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd . 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora .
20. Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act, since, two fora below have given cogent reasons in their orders, which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.
21. It is not that every order passed by the Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning.
22. Under these circumstances, present petition is without any legal basis and is merit-less. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
23. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) by way of a cross cheque in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account within four weeks from today.
24. In case, costs are not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
25. List on 13th April, 2012, for compliance.
J. (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER SSB