PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 79/2010 – Eicher Plan and Marketing Head Quarter Eicher Motors, C.V. Unit of Eicher Motor Ltd. Vs. Bachan Narayan Singh & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased Eicher truck No. JH01S-5502 from OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 on 16.5.2007 with warranty of three years.  Complainant’s truck broke down on 13.6.2008 and again on 17.10.2008 and got it repaired with difficulty. It was further submitted that at the time of first repair 45 days were taken in repairing and on second break down repairs have not been made till filing of complaint on 7.11.2008 which caused loss of the complainant in his business.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District forum.  OP resisted complaint and submitted that problem arose after one year of purchase of the vehicle and on account of major repair time was taken.  It was further submitted that charges were taken for items not covered by warranty.  It was further submitted that complainant himself is to be blamed for bad maintenance of the vehicle and running it over loaded on rough roads and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP No. 1 & 2 to replace engine with a new one, refund repair charges and pay loan interest and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  Appeal filed by the OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.      None appeared for Respondent No.2 and he was proceeded ex-parte.  None appeared for Respondent No. 4 also.

4.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admissions stage and perused record.

5.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint as break down was within warranty period; even then, learned State  Commission committed error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, leaned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission wrongly observed that there was warranty for six months or covered mileage of 20,000 kms. only which is apparently not correct.  Learned Counsel for the respondent admits this fact and perusal of warranty reveals that warranty was for a period of 36 months irrespective of kilometres covered during this period.  In such circumstances, apparently, learned State Commission wrongly observed that vehicle covered more mileage than permitted under the warranty card.

7.      Admittedly, there was break down in the vehicle after 13 months of purchase after running 34,000 kms.  As far manufacturing defect is concerned, as vehicle had already run 34,000 kms., no manufacturing defect in the engine can be presumed.  Petitioner has placed affidavit of Vishwanath Prasad on record in which he has stated that he was trained B.M. and further mentioned that break down on two occasions shows wrong repairing and weak parts. He further submitted that he is an Ex-Army Technical Junior Commissioned officer and have 40 years’ experience. In this affidavit he has not mentioned which part was wrongly repaired after first break down and which part of the engine was weak. If vehicle had run 34,000 kms. without any fault, by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that parts of the engine were weak and learned State Commission rightly observed that District Forum allowed complaint without any evidence of manufacturing defect.

8.      Learned State Commission also observed that petitioner purchased vehicle for commercial purposes and he does not fall within the purview of consumer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that vehicle was purchased by petitioner for earning his own livelihood and he placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in F.A. No. 159 of 2004 – M/s. Harsolia Motors Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd.  I agree with the principles laid down in aforesaid judgment in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583 case, but I do not find any averment in the complaint that complainant purchased vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Merely because it has been mentioned in the complaint that his business is closed since 20.10.2008, it cannot be inferred that he was earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and learned State Commission rightly observed that petitioner did not fall within the purview of consumer and complaint was not maintainable.

9.      In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

10.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.