FIRST APPEAL  NO.531  OF 2009

FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2008

              Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Both appeals are filed by opposite parties whereas complainant is respondent in both appeals.

2.           Captioned appeals  are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.           The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being super class contractor had purchased a vibratory roller model L&T 752 from Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who are the manufacturer of the said machinery.

4.          It is alleged inter alia that vibratory roller has given many defects which is after purchase of the machine. The Service Engineer found leakage of oil from the vibratory roller. So he advised for replacement of the machine but the complainant did not agree to same and allowed for replacement of  roller. Finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint case.

5.          The opposite party no.4 is set ex parte. Opposite Party nos. 1,2,3 and 5 have filed their written version. Opposite party nos. 6 and 7 separately filed written version.

6.          It is the case of the opposite parties that the vibratory roller was used and the defects pointed out after the warranty period. The warranty is for one year or 3000 hour of  operation. It is alleged that after the warranty period, the opposite party has no response. So they have denied their obligation on free basis.

7.          After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

              “However, considering the circumstances and use of the roller for about seven years award of Rs. 8,00,000/- ( Rupees Eight Lakhs) towards compensation will meet the ends of justice. Hence ordered:

                  The O.P.Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees one thousand) towards cost jointly and severally to the  complainant within two months from the date of order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till payment.

                  The case is dismissed against O.P.Nos. 6  and 7.”

8.          Learned counsel for the appellant only submitted that learned District Forum passed the impugned order by not considering the issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. According to him, the cost of the machine is Rs. 21,21,800/- and at that time learned District Forum has no power to decide the case where the cost of the machine is more than Rupees twenty lakhs. Since the cost of the machine is more than Rupees Twenty lakhs, learned District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. Further, he submitted that the vibratory roller purchased by the complainant was covered under warranty for six months or 1000 working hours of operation and major components are warranted for a period of 12 months or 3000 hours of operation and beyond this period, service is to be provided on payment of charges.  Therefore, learned District Forum in spite of considering the written version passed the impugned order which should be set aside by allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by passing the impugned order.

9.          Considered the submissions, perused the DFR and the impugned order.

10.        It is admitted that the dispute is with regard to Vibrating Roller and it is admitted in the complaint that the cost of the  vibrating roller is Rs. 21,21,800/-.

11.        Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states as follows:-

                “11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation , if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.”

12.        The aforesaid provision is clear that the learned District Forum is entitled to entertain the claim where the value of the subject matter is less than Rupees Twenty Lakhs. Since the subject matter in this  case is Rs. 21,21,800/- as admitted in the complaint, it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that learned District Forum has entertained the complaint erroneously and it is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. Due to non-compliance of Section 11(1) of the Act, 1986, we do not think it proper to go into the merits of the case. However, it appears that after the warranty period is over, the opposite parties are not liable to repair the machine on free basis. Therefore, the complainant has no cases.           In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 12.    Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.