Date of filing:31.08.2019

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:12.09.2023

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 12^th Day of September 2023

PRESENT

Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.1277/2019

M/s Case New Holland Construction

Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Authorised Incharge,

Mr. Vishwanath Chikkon,

Having its Regd. Office at:

Plot No.157, Pitampur Industrial Estate,

Phase-3, Dist:Dhar,

Madhya Pradesh-452074.…….. Appellant

(By Mr.Rohit R Kukrega, Adv.)

-Versus-

1. Hanumaiah,

S/o Late Bommegowda,

Aged about 47 years,

R/a Madduru,

Malavalli Main Road,

Maddur Tq.,

Mandya Dist.

(By Mr.Chandrashekara K, Adv.)

2. Afro Asia Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep by its Manager,

Having its Office at:

No.2236, 15^th Cross,​

ORDER

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP1 in CC/272/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya, aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2019. (The parties in this appeal will be referred to their rank assigned by the Forum below).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. OP1 is a manufacturer of construction equipment vehicles, sold an equipment called loader Backhoe to one Mr.Hanumaiah the complainant before the Forum below.  The said equipment was manufactured in the month of November 2015 was sold to him for Rs.23,86,000/- on 05.12.2015. The Complainant had paid Rs.4,36,000/- by way of cash and had paid Rs.19,50,000/- availing finance from Srei Equipment Finance Limited.  The said equipment was registered in the office of RTO as KA-11-8374.  The said equipment was purchased by complainant through OP2 which is the non exclusive dealer of OP1.  After purchase of the said equipment complainant went on complaining on complain   about the equipment engine being in bad condition, although there was repair works done and made equipment to a running proper condition.  The said equipment after continuous back to back complaints, was repaired through their engineer and had told complainant,   change of oil lead to the equipment being in good working condition without any defect.  However, complainant had issued a legal notice alleging rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2 and had claimed seeking replacement of engine to the said equipment.  He has sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for having sold defective equipment and sought for Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of earnings and Rs.50,000/- for the loss at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each from 07.11.0216 to 17.11.2016.  Further sought for Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and physical inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.

4. OP Nos.1 and 2 put their appearance through learned counsels and submitted their version, contending that complainant is not a consumer nor the Forum below gets either territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain their complaint. They denied categorically that the equipment sold by OP1 through OP2 in favour of complainant was defective equipment.  They denied loss of earnings due to selling of defective equipment.  Further would contend   as per clause 3, 5, 7, 13 and 14 of the warranty against defective materials and workmanship for a period of 12 months or 2000 hours of operation, whichever is comes earlier from the date of delivery and hence the  complainant is not entitle for any reliefs claimed in this complaint.

5. In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the Forum below held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of both parties and received documents placed on record by both parties, proceed to allow the complaint in part directed  OP Nos.1 and 2 to replace new engine in place of defective engine of the vehicle bearing no.KA-11-8374 and directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost within two months, failing which Rs.7,000/- awarded as compensation and litigation cost shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till realization and it is this order being assailed in this appeal, contending that the Forum below failed to appreciate that equipment is an earth moving equipment is subject to wear and tear which would be measured in its usage at harsh and not on the basis of kilometers.  The Forum below failed to appreciate the fact that complainant had not examined any expert with regard to the functioning of the engine.  The Forum below failed to appreciate that the equipment in question is commercial equipment.  The complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986.  The directions issued by the Forum below to replace the engine of the equipment are contrary to the RTO Regulations and Motor Equipment Act.  The findings recorded by the Forum below is contrary to law and facts, is liable to be set aside.

6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties to this appeal, now the commission has to decide, whether findings recorded by the forum below in passing impugned order is factually and legally justifiable or does call for any interference?

7. It is not in dispute that OP1 is a manufacturer of construction equipment vehicle purchased by complainant for Rs.23,86,000/- on 05.12.2015.  It is not in dispute that complainant had paid Rs.4,36,000/- in cash to OP1 through OP2 who is admittedly non exclusive dealer of OP1.  It is   not in dispute that complainant had availed loan of Rs.19,50,000/- from Srei Equipment Finance Limited and paid such amount to OP1 through cheque and it  is also not in dispute that the said equipment came to be registered as KA-11-8374 by RTO Mandya and is used by complainant.  It is not in dispute that the Complainant is a resident of Madduru Town, situated in Mandya District of Karnataka. In so far as  OP1 is  the manufacturer of equipment loader Backhoe is from Dhar, Madhya Pradesh of India, while OP2 their non exclusive dealer is from ‘D’ Block, Sahakaranagara, Bengaluru, Karnataka. In such circumstances, this  complaint came to be filed on the file of Forum below on 03.12.2016, came to be admitted by the Forum below and the Forum below held complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed before Mandya Forum is maintainable.

8.  Let us examine certain provisions of law before proceeding to examine the merits of the case.  Sec.11 provides for Jurisdiction of the District Forum – Sub Sec.1 provides –

“Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-.”

In this regard, we have to take notice of the fact w.e.f. 13.03.2003 the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum came to be enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. The CPA, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 20.07.2020 and as per Sec.34(1) –

“Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of the goods and services paid as consideration does not exceed Rs.1 Crore.”

However, w.e.f., December 2020 the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission is reduced to Rs.50,00000/- from Rs.1crore.

9. Since the complainant herein   case raised consumer complaint U/s 12 of CPA, 1986 on 03.12.2016, Sec.11 of CPA, 1986 shall apply to this case and to entertain complaints before the Forum below in such circumstances, condition precedent would be the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed has to be considered and there is no ambiguity on this point.  Now, we have to examine from the complaint averments as to the   value of the goods or services and compensation claimed if any.  As already stated that complainant had purchased construction equipment vehicle from OP1 through OP2 their non exclusive dealer for Rs.23,86,000/- on 05.12.2015.  He has claimed seeking replacement of the defective equipment vehicle purchased for Rs.23,86,000/- and further sought for Rs.1,00,000/- for rendering deficiency of service, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.50,000/- for loss of earnings commencing from 07.11.2016 to 17.11.2016, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and physical inconvenience and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.  It is therefore we have now to state as per Sec.11 of CPA 1986 the value of the goods and compensation has to be considered to invoke jurisdiction of the Forum however on plain reading of contents of complaint coupled with reliefs sought for the value of the goods and compensation sought in the complaint together worked out to Rs.27,61,000/- and  thus  these figures are prima facie oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum, yet Forum below for the reasons best known proceed to entertain the complaint is nothing but exercising powers beyond the limit of the forum or we may also call it error apparent on record or  committing  grave error by an authority which did not have vested with such powers. In other words such findings are to hold not only contrary to facts but also attack on Sec.11 of CPA, 1986.

10. The next point would be whether complainant is a consumer within the ambit of Sec. 2(1)d of CPA, 1986 in other words we have to examine whether on facts of the case of the complaint, complainant fits within the frame of Sec.2(1)(d) of CPA, 1986.  Sec.2(1)(d) defines – “Consumer” means any person who –

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or

2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “Commercial Purpose”, does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

11. In view of the above provisions of law, we have to examine whether complainant falls well within the definition stated above or did he used the equipment vehicle not for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment but for commercial purpose.  Learned counsel for OPs placed a decision in the case between Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd., v. Greaves Cotton and Company Limited passed by Hon’ble NCDRC, wherein in Para-21 to 23 held –

21. The word “Commercial” is an adjective definition the nature of a transaction or activity irrespective of the fact whether that transaction of activity is on a large scale or on a small scale.If my activity or transaction is for the purpose of profit making it becomes commercial.

22. Again the expression used in the Act is “Commercial Purpose”:

“Purpose” is the noun qualified by the adjective “Commercial”.The character of any economic activity, whose purpose is to make profit or to obtain a financial return, will be commercial irrespective of the scale of the activity. “Purpose” is common to all economic activities: Cottage industries, village industries, small scale industries, medium scale industries and large scale industries.In fact the Act and the Rules contain no guidelines for distinguishing between activities which are large scale and those which are not large scale.Therefore, every person engaged in any economic activity of production including agriculture and horticulture, manufacture, distribution and sale, is engaged in a commercial activity for the purpose of obtaining profit or making a living irrespective of the sale of the operations.

23. It would be evident from the foregoing that the word used in Sec.2(1)(d)(i) “for commercial purpose” have to be given a precise and restrictive meaning: Commercial purpose has to be distinguished from commercial production and commercial activity.The Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act have to be interpreted harmoniously. The interpretation of the words “Commercial Purpose” in Sec.2(1)(d)(i) must be logical and equitable so as to avoid patent anomalies and inconsistencies in the application of the law.Viewed in this background, the various tests for determining whether the goods have been purchased for a commercial purpose would be:

(i) the goods are not for immediate final consumption but that there is only transfer of goods i.e., resale.

(ii) there should be a direct nexus between the purchase of goods and the profit or loss from their further disposal.Such a direct nexus is absent whent the goods or services are converted for producing other goods or services.After conversion there is no direct nexus between the kind of goods purchased and the kind of goods sold.

(iii) There is nexus of form and kind between the goods purchased and the goods sold.Such a direct nexus of form and kind ceases when the goods undergo transformation or conversion.

12. Further relied on, in the case between Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and another v. Vijaya Bank the Hon’ble NCDRC on 13.03.2023 held in para-16 –

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors.’ (2020) 2 SCC 265, had occasion to consider in detail, the question as to who would fall under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to be treated as ‘Consumer’ for availing of services and after referring to its earlier decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the broad principles for determining whether an activity or transaction is ‘for a commercial purpose’ or not.For ready reference, para Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 19 of the ‘Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (supra)’, which are relevant in the present case, are reproduced herein below:-

“12. In Laxmi Engg. [Laxmi Engg. Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583], which is one of the leading authorities on this point, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elucidated upon the meaning of “commercial purpose” as follows: (SCC pp.591-92, paras 10-11) “10. A review of the provisions of the Act discloses that the quasi-judicial bodies/authorities/agencies created by the Act known as District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission are not courts though invested with some of the powers of a civil court.They are quasi-judicial tribunals brought into existence to render inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers. …… The idea was to held the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. Indeed, the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest.The Act provides for “business-to-consumer” disputes and not for “business-to-business” disputes.This scheme of the Act, in our opinion, is relevant to and helps in interpreting the words that fall for consideration in this appeal.…….. Controversy has, however, arisen with respect to meaning of the expression “commercial purpose”.It is also not defined in the Act.In the absence of a definition, we have to go by its ordinary meaning.“Commercial” denotes “pertaining to commerce” (Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary); it means “connected with, or engaged in commerce; mercantile; having profit as the main aim” (Collins English Dictionary) whereas the word “commerce” means “financial transactions especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale” (Concise Oxford Dictionary).The National Commission appears to have been taking a consistent view that where a person purchases goods ‘with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit’ he will not be a “consumer” within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. …. The Explanation reduces the question, what is a “commercial purpose”, to a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to.The several words employed in the Explanation viz. “uses them by himself”, “exclusively for the purpose for earning his livelihood” and “by means of self-employment” make the intention of Parliament abundantly clear, that the goods bought must be used by the buyer himself, by employing himself for earning his livelihood”.

13. In the aforementioned discussion in Laxmi Engg. [Laxmi Engg. Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 Scc 583], this Court relied upon Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC online NCDRC 3:(1991) 1 CPJ 499] In Synco Textiles [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC online NCDRC 3:(1991) 1 CPJ 499], a four-Member Bench of the National Commission headed by V. Balakrishna Eradi, J., expounded upon the meaning of the term “commercial purpose”, prior to the insertion of the Explanation clause to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act : (Synco Textiles case [Synco Textiles (P) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 1990 SCC online NCDRC 3:(1991) 1 CPJ 499], SCC Online NCDRC paras 5-6 &8) “5. … The words “for any commercial purpose” are wide enough to take in all cases where goods are purchased for being used in any activity directly intended to generate profit……

13. Further also placed a reliance in the case between M/s JCB India Ltd. v. Mr.Mallappa Sangappa Mantri decided on 01.08.2012 by the Hon’ble NCDRC wherein in para-5 held –

5. In view of such detailed averments made by the petitioner in the written statement, it was absolutely necessary for the District Forum and the State Commission to take due note of the objections raised by the petitioners.Perusal of the orders of the Fora below indicates that this important aspect has almost been brushed aside without being dealt with adequately.In the face of such a preliminary objection supported by the case law, the burden of showing that the machine in question was actually being used by the complainant for earning his livelihood through self-employment necessarily passed on to the complainant because he has not given any information to the contrary in this respect in his complaint.On the other hand, as stated above, there is a clear admission on his part in his complaint that he had kept a number of people for running and operating the machine and that the machine was actually being used for earning income by renting it out for excavation from time to time.This being the admitted position emanating from the record, the State Commission erred in making the following observations in the impugned order:-

According to the respondent/complainant he has raised a huge loan from HDFC Bank and purchased JCB from the appellants/OPs.It is for the appellants/OPs to prove that the respondent/complainant who had purchased the vehicle/JCB for commercial purpose.But failed to do so.Even if the vehicle purchased for commercial purpose, if any defects were noticed in the JCB/machine during warranty period, then complaint is maintainable.

Further in end of para-6 held –

……… In view of this, the complainant/respondent No.1 cannot be held to be a consumer and hence the complaint in question is not maintainable before any Consumer Forum.Consequently, the revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.Liberty, however, is granted to the respondent No.1/complainant to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance and in case he chooses to do so, he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent before the Consumer For a in accordance with the ruling given by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute [(1995) 3 SCC 583].

14. Thus, keeping in mind the principles enunciated  in the  decisions cited supra, in the case on hand, on facts admittedly complainant had also purchased, similar such equipment vehicle from OPs with registered no.KA-11-M-8374, which was registered on 29.12.2010 as per Ex.R1 ‘B’-Register Extract placed to show that it is still with the complainant. On the contrary, complainant placed nothing on record to shown, that it was already sold to somebody and the equipment purchased from Ops involved in this complaint alone is using in substation of the sold one.  The contents of Ex.R1 discloses that Mr.Hanumaiah Late Bomme Gowda registered as owner w.e.f. 29.12.2010 and this B extract was supplied to OP2 on 23.01.2017 during the course of pendency of complaint suffice to hold that the said excavator was also using by him alone and the equipment vehicle purchased was manufactured by OP1 through their non exclusive dealer is the second similar such equipment. We have observe herein merely because complainant is authorized to drive LDR –XCV issued by licensing authority Mandya, is not a ground to hold that the equipment is used for his livelihood and for earning on earning profit to amass wealth for his family. He had purchased the equipment loader Backhoe vehicle registered as KA-11-8374 on 05.12.2015 but facts remain found from license was authorized to drive the equipment till 25.07.2014, suffice to hold that he owns two such equipments, definitely could not be said for livelihood by means of self employment and these vital aspects of the matter was not at all examined by the Forum below.  We have also to be take notice of the fact that complainant/R1 herein has placed 02 documents one is Copy of the Insurance Policy and another would be Loan Clearance Certificate issued by Srei Equipment Finance Limited.  In our view, these 02 documents would play a vital importance to draw an inference that the vehicle equipment purchased from OPs on 05.12.2015 was purchased to expand his activities to earn more money and not for his livelihood and on fact it could be inferred had earned money and discharged the dues of the whole loan amount. 

15. According to complainant in his complaint  prayer para-7(c) had sought, as he had sustained loss of earning from 07.11.2016 to 17.11.2016 for Rs.5,000/- each for a day, since engineer of OPs resolved the problem persisted in the equipment and in para-6 itself has stated that it was the equipment vehicle w.e.f., 17.11.2016 was functioning  and his documents placed on record as stated above issued by Reliance General Insurance Package Policy Schedule in respect of  KA-11-M-8374 could see, is a Commercial Vehicle, issued in the name of Mr.Hanumaiah the complainant herein.  It is found the date of insurance commencing from 29.03.2019 to 28.03.2020.  The IDV is Rs.17,85,000/-.  The Total premium paid was Rs.20,250/-.  He has obtained this policy   for IDV of Rs.17,85,000/- for the period from 29.03.2019 to 28.03.2020 and the most important fact to be noted herein during  pendency of the complaint, suffice to hold that the equipment vehicle excavator was in good condition and it was functioning in order and   was using the said vehicle as before which would further corroborate from his own document issued from Srei Equipment Finance Limited on 18.02.2019, informing him Hypothecation Loan Agreement has been closed and they confirm that they have received all the installments and overdue charges due from him.  Is it not sufficient to hold that the he has used the said equipment all these days or years, had earned income as before when one equipment was with him before purchase of this equipment and this equipment was in good condition only otherwise   Reliance General Insurance would not have issued a package policy for the period from 29.03.2019 to 28.03.2020 accepting IDV at Rs.17,85,000/-. The complainant had also discharged the loan availed from Srei Equipment Financer along with interest. It is shown he had availed Rs.19,50,000/- and had paid EMI at Rs.63,100/- which cannot be said that the vehicle equipment was a defective vehicle even after the persistence problem as to spilling of engine oil   resolved w.e.f. 17.08.2016.  In such view of the matter, on facts, the decision relied on by learned counsel for complainant/R1 reported 2021 (4) CPR 306 (NC) in the case between Nakoda Machinery Pvt. Ltd. v. John Crasta and Another wherein held- in para-15-

15. From Service Job Work Reports (Ext.A-4 to Ext.A-7 and Ext.A-11), which were proved by the Affidavit of Evidence filed by Service Manager, it was proved that Rock Breaker had created problem from the date of its purchase.In the Service Job Work Report, it has not been mentioned that Rack Breaker was roughly used by unskilled person.Findings of the Foras below that Rock Breaker was suffering from manufacturing defect does not suffer for any illegality.

Could be said has no application to the facts of the case in this appeal and the decision does not come to the assistance of complainant to contend that complainant is entitle for replacement of new engine in place of defective engine of the equipment vehicle.In order to establish the defectiveness of the engine report of expert is required, as per S.13 (1) (c) of CPA, 1986 which is corresponding Sec.38 (1)(c) of CPA, 2019 was also not considered by the Forum below. In so far as clause-3, 5, 7, 13 and 14 of the warranty clauses which are absolutely relevant were also not been examined before passing the impugned order, as such in our view, the Forum below has failed not only to appreciate all such vital aspects of the Consumer Complaint but the laws. In such forming opinion it is not necessary to go in detail as to how engine oil and engine oil filter along with diesel filter, air filter was replaced, since enquiry reveals that the crew of OP1 were timely attended on the said equipment and made the equipment vehicle in order w.e.f. 17.11.2015.At this stage, it would be appropriate to make mention of the clause-3, 5, 7, 13 and 14 respectively:-

• The warranty will not cover normal wear and tear, failure due to improper operation, poor maintenance, and/or improper handling of the equipment.

• The warranty will be, in each instance on the warranties extended to the company/dealer by his supplies, in case of such bought-out items as “engine”, “electric motors”, “alternators”, tires, tubes and batteries.  Under no circumstances whatsoever shall the company/dealer be responsible for default in quality, workmanship or performance beyond the guarantee of company’s/dealer’s supplier in respect of such item.

• Please refer to authorized dealer regarding free services available.  Strict adherence to the instruction given there under is necessary.

• No warranty is applicable for accidents and failure cause due to negligence of the machine operator.

16. Thus from the above clauses, coupled with discussion made above, since complainant placed nothing on record to establish loader Backhoe cum Excavator manufactured by OP1 purchased from OP2 by complainant is a defective as alleged and the  allegation that on the date of purchase 04 liters of Diesel used to consume for 01 Hour functioning of the equipment vehicle and later on consuming 5 ½ liters of diesel cannot be acceptable, in the absence of report of an expert  to that effect, was not considered by the Forum below.  We have also considered all the interrogatories and answers thereon of the respective parties and even it would be hold that the equipment vehicle purchased by complainant was delivered at the place of complainant, situate at the territorial jurisdiction of Mandya Forum by the crew of OP1 personally   at the   place still entertaining a complaint by the Forum beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction would be said illegal and contrary to the facts and in violation of the provisions of CPA, 1986. Hence commission proceeds to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the order dated 25.07.2019 passed in CC/272/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya and as a result dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost.

17. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the Commission below for needful.

18. Remit back the LCR to Commission below and send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

  Lady Member                               Judicial Member             

*GGH*