State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ruplal Kosare vs Manager Same Deutz-Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. on 23 December, 2010
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.101/2010
Instituted on 16.02.10
Ruplal Kosare, S/o. Shri Firantalal Kosare,
R/o. Kesalikhurd, P.O. Bhalapur, Tah. Mungeli,
Dist. BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Manager / Director,
Same Deutz-Fahr India (Pvt.) Ltd.,
72, Sipkot Industrial Complex,
RANIPET - 632 403 (TAMILNADU) INDIA
2. Authorized Dealer, Patel Motors,
Gurunanak Chowk, Torwa,
Dist. BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Mukesh Sharma, for appellant.
Shri Jitendra Nayak, for respondents.
ORAL ORDER Dated: 23 /12/2010 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against order dated 14.01.10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.111/07, whereby the complaint of the appellant in respect of deficiency in service and for seeking compensation of Rs.14,42,500/- from the respondents has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant does not come in the category of „consumer‟ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
// 2 //
2. In nutshell the facts of the complaint, filed before District Forum, were that the complainant is owner of a tractor and was using it for the purpose of drip irrigation facility in his field. It has been averred in the complaint that respondent No.2 was appointed as a new dealer of manufacturing company of the tractor and he contacted all the owners of tractors in the area on phone and informed that now it has been appointed a new dealer, so it is going to organize a free service camp on 22.01.07. The complainant got impressed with the proposal and brought his tractor on 22.01.07 to the service station of respondent No.2. It was repaired there free of cost and was provided back to the complainant on 24.01.07. Later on it was observed by the complainant that the vehicle was repaired by unskilled mechanics, who at the place of repairing the vehicle, have produce new troubles in the vehicle. Appellant then again brought the vehicle to respondent No.2 on 25.01.07 and handed over it for repairs. It was repaired and provided back on 05.04.07 and charges were obtained. It has been alleged that on account of servicing by unskilled mechanics in the free service camp, problems generated in the vehicle and it could not be used for a period of around 2 and ½ months, which adversely affected agricultural operations of the complainant, causing loss to him of Rs.14,42,500/-. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum seeking compensation of that amount.
// 3 //
3. In reply of the complaint, respondents averred that the vehicle was properly attended and after repair it was provided to the complainant on 24.01.07. When it was brought again on 25.01.07 and was inspected, then it was found that some of the parts were needing replacement and were to be called from Ranipet, Tamilnadu which was to take time. The complainant was informed immediately and he agreed for calling such parts from Tamilnadu. Thereafter, on his consent, parts were called from that remote State and tractor was repaired as per full satisfaction of the complainant and was delivered him back. It has been averred that the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. It is not in dispute between the parties that on 22.01.07, the vehicle was handed over to the OP for its servicing and repairing free of charges. Therefore the question before District Forum was that whether the availed free services could also be termed as services provided under section 2 (1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act and learned District Forum has decided this question against the appellant.
5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. From the record and from the arguments of both parties, it appears that on 22.01.07, when new dealership was started, then paid // 4 // services were not provided by respondent No.2 to anyone and there is no material on the basis of which it can be said that any payment was obtained by respondent No.2 from any of the vehicle owner for providing services in that free service camp. Thus, it is clear that, that camp was free for all the vehicle owners and without distinction, services were provided totally free from 22.01.07 to 24.01.07. When no payment was obtained for providing services, then such free services does not come in the category of „service‟ as defined under Consumer Protection Act and availment of such free service brings a person out from the category of „consumer‟ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon pronouncement of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) and submitted that as per interpretation of the word „services‟ by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, if free services are provided by respondent No.2, even then that can also be included in the term availment of services under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of the fact that later on respondent No.2 has provided charged services.
8. We find that during the period of 21.01.07 to 24.01.07 vehicle owners were provided free services. In the case of V.P. Santha (supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court has opined that when any medical institution // 5 // provided services free of cost to some patients and if some patients were charged for providing such services, then the services provided free of cost to those some persons are also to be termed as services within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the situation is entirely different. During the period of three days no-one was charged by respondent No.2 and every person was provided free services. Therefore, if services were availed free of cost then there cannot be any contract of providing services on payment, between the parties and so the complainant cannot make grievance in respect of such services, which was provided free of cost. For that purpose he cannot come in the category of „consumer‟ as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, being a person availed services free of cost, which was outside the scope of section 2 (1) (o) of the Act.
9. Therefore, we find that the District Forum has not committed any mistake in dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant liberty is granted for filing appropriate Civil Suit or any other proceedings against respondents, if the appellant so chooses. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/12/2010 /12/2010