Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/730

SATYENRA NANHET - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABRON BATTERY CO. - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2018

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 18.03.2013 passed in C.C.No.312/2011 by the District Forum, Jabalpur)  

 

SATYENDRA KUMAR NANHET

S/O SHRI RAMESH NANHET,

R/O NAGAR NIGAM QUARTER, TRIMURTI NAGAR,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                                          …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MANAGER, ABRON BATTERY COMPANY,

    SHARDA CHOWK, OPPOSITE PETROL PUMP,

    MADAN MAHAL, JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. MANAGER, TATA FINANCE, TATA MOTORS,

    COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

    213, SHIVHARE COMPLEX, MAHANADDA,

    NAGPUR ROAD, JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                        …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGRAWAL            :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. MRS. MONIKA MALIK     :      MEMBER

 

 

                                                O R D E R

04.05.2018

 

           Ms. Shabina Ali, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondents despite intimation.

             

As per Shri S.D.Agarwal : 

                       This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur in C.C. No. 312/2011 whereby the complaint filed by him was dismissed.

 2.                    The main allegation of the complainant/appellant is that he after obtaining financial assistance had purchased Magic Loading Mini Truck bearing registration no. MP-20 LA-3054 from respondent no.2. The said vehicle along with the battery was under warranty.  It is alleged that on 15.02.2011, the battery of the vehicle went out of order of which complaint was made to respondent no.2, who in turn asked him to approach respondent no.1.  He approached respondent no.1, who took the battery in its possession on 04.03.2011 and not returned.  The appellant therefore filed a complaint before the Forum.  The Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the nature of the complaint is of commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.

3.                     Learned counsel for appellant argued that the order of the Forum is illegal and beyond jurisdiction because the appellant purchased the vehicle (mini loading truck) for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and warranty for one year for different parts and battery of the vehicle was given. During warranty the battery went out of order but the respondent no.1 neither replaced nor repaired the same. The Forum has erroneously dismissed the complaint as not

-2-

maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 holding that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for appellant. Respondents remained absent despite notice and intimation.  Perused the record.

5.                     On perusal of record and after hearing counsel we find that the order of the Forum is perverse and illegal, even if, the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, warranty period cannot be excluded for personal or commercial use.

6.                     In view of the above, we set-aside the impugned order and allowed this appeal.  Since a very long period has elapsed, we deem it appropriate that the ends of justice would meet, if the respondents are directed to pay the cost of the battery of that vehicle.  Accordingly the respondents are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the battery to the complainant/appellant, jointly and severally.  The respondents are also directed to pay jointly and severally cost of the proceedings quantified as Rs.2000/- to the complainant/appellant.

                    

                     (S.D.Agrawal)                                   (Dr.Monika Malik)

                  Presiding Member                                        Member