BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint   Case No  : 1458 of 2009

Date    of   Institution :    28.10.2009

Date   of    Decision   :    21.01.2010

Gurjeet Singh son of Sh.Ranjit Singh, Proprietor of R.K.Automobiles, SCO No.396, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     Eureka Forbes Ltd., Division Sale Office, SCO No.14, First and Second Floor, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.

2]     Eureka Forbes Ltd., Area Sale Office, A-34, First Floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110040 through its Area Sales Officer.

3]     Eureka Forbes Ltd., Registered Office 7, Chakreberia Road (South), Kolkatta 700025, through its Auth. Representative. 

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL              PRESIDENT

                DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                      MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh.Varinder Arora, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Parminder Jassal, Auth. Repr. of OPs.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                Concisely put, the complainant being the Proprietor of M/s. R.K.Automobiles and engaged in the business of service centre of M/s. Bajaj Auto India Ltd., purchased one Eureka Forbes Euroclean Power Wash on 4.5.2009 from OP No.1 vide Ann.C-1 and it was carrying warranty of 12 months from the date of its purchase vide Ann.C-2.  It is averred that the said machine, just within two weeks of its purchase, started giving problem/stop functioning.  A complaint was lodged on 22.5.2009 in response to which the official of OPs visited the business premises of complainant and assured that the problem would be rectified within few days but neither they nor anyone else turned up thereafter to rectify the defect due to which the complainant had to face great hardship and huge loss in business.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OPs but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been instituted asserting that due to above deficient & illegal acts of OPs, the complainant has to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and huge monetary loss. 

2]             OP filed reply through affidavit stating interalia that the complainant is not a consumer as the product sold to him was used for commercial purpose i.e. in the service centre being run by complainant having twenty people employed therein.  It is stated that the warranty of the product in question clearly stipulated that the warranty was applicable only when the machine was used in normal working conditions in accordance with the Operating Manual.  The complainant neither used the machine in normal working conditions nor in accordance with the Operating Manual and it was used for long period in service centre against its prescribed usage. It is denied that the machine was having any problem.  It is submitted that the only complaint about the pipe attached to the machine was received from the complainant on 7.6.2009, which was promptly attended to on the same day and pipe was replaced.  It is also submitted that the machine was working perfectly OK and the complaint was attended promptly but inspite of that the complainant illegally demanded the replacement of said machine or refund of its price.  Denying all other allegations of the complainant, OP prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and representative of OP and have also perused the record.

5]             The invoice Annexure C-2 shows that the machine was purchased by R.K. Automobiles, S.C.O. 396, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.  According to the complainant, he is proprietor of the said firm and is engaged in the business.  There is no dispute about it that the complainant is running his business R.K. Automobiles of interalia car wash at a large scale. It is the case of the OP that he had employed atleast 20 persons to run the said business.  The contention of the OP is two folded, firstly that the machine having being purchased and used for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer and secondly that the machine sold to the complainant was for domestic use, which he is using for commercial purpose and therefore the said machine could not have with stood the burden put on it.

6]             The commercial purpose has been admitted by the complainant.  His contention is that he is running the business to earn his livelihood.  Since about 20 persons are employed in the premises, it therefore cannot be said that the complainant is running the said business just to earn his livelihood.  It is a business concern and the machine being used for commercial purpose, the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer.  The machine was sold to the complainant for domestic use but he is using it for a commercial purpose and therefore according to the OPs, the machine could not withstand the pressure put on it.  In that eventuality also the warranty could not be applicable and the complainant would not be entitled to free repair of the machine.

7]             It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the OPs that even inspite of that, when a defect was pointed out they had gone to the premises of the complainant to repair the machine. Thereafter no such defect was pointed out and the machine is working properly but having used the same extensively, the complainant now wants to replace the same with a new one by putting pressure on the OPs. We are of the opinion that the complaint cannot be allowed to succeed in his evil designs.

8]             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.