Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/2314/2010

Hari Charan Lal Bansal S/o Panna Lal Bansal, Age 51 Years, B/c Mahajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.S. Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Dhanjay Bhardwaj

30 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 2314 /2010

 

Hari Charan Lal Bansal s/o Panna Lal Bansal r/o village & Post office Rudawal, Tehsil Roopbass, Distt. Bharatpur, Raj.

Vs.

 

J.S.Four wheel Motors Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Road, Alwar through its Manager & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 30.10.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rajesh Mootha counsel for respondents

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9.11.2010 of the District Consumer Forum, Alwar by which it allowed the complaint.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the court below has erred in not accepting his contention that respondents were deficient in service. They unnecessarily retained their vehicle from 19.6.2004 to 4.10.2004 and no award has been passed by the District Forum in his favour and meagre amount of Rs.5000/- has been allowed as compensation for non-supply of mobile hand set which was the duty of the respondents to supply him under the scheme.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondents is that they have immediately repair the vehicle and it was on the instructions of the appellant the vehicle was retained there to explore the possibility of its sale. Hence, they are not deficient in service. His further contention is that the vehicle has been purchased for commercial purpose which oust the jurisdiction of this court.

3

 

Heard the learned counsels for the parties . Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

On preliminary objection that whether this court has jurisdiction, the appellant has relied on 2001 (2) CPR 92 (NC) C.P.Moosa Vs. M/s.Chowgle Industries Ltd. & ors. where it has been held that when goods were purchased for commercial purpose, the purchaser is consumer during warranty period. Further reliance has been placed on III (2006) CPJ 264 (NC) Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. Vs. Indocon Engineers Pvt.Ltd. & ors.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondents is that purchase for commercial purposes oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and reliance has been placed on III (2013) CPJ 261 (NC) Morion Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UCO Bank & ors., I (2014) CPJ 17 A (HP) Unique Motors Vs. Vijay Kumar Goel, I (2011) CPJ 1 (SC) Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. where it has been held that purchase for commercial purpose and as such the respondent would be excluded for being considered as a consumer.

 

Both the parties have relied upon IV (2010) CPJ 178

4

 

(NC) Sanjay D.Ghodawat Vs. RRB Energy Ltd. Which is the complete answer to the question and it has been held that prior to the amendment of S.2 (1) (d)(ii), a person hiring or availing services for consideration was not excluded even though services were availed for any commercial purposes. Therefore, any deficiency in service during warranty period, complaint is maintainable. Hence, the contention of the respondents is not well founded.

 

Here in the present case the vehicle has been purchased admittedly on 15.2.2003 prior to the amendment in S.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act. Hence, the appellant is a consumer in terms of the definition of the 'consumer' and if during warranty period there is any deficiency in service, the complaint is maintainable.

 

As regards facts, it is not in dispute that the vehicle has been in the custody of the respondents from 19.6.2004 to 4.10.2004. The contention of the respondents is that on the instructions of the appellant it was retained by him and Hitesh Sharma his employee has retained the vehicle on the instructions of the appellant but Hitesh Sharma has not been examined as witness and appellant has denied the contention that on his instructions the respondents has retained his vehicle.

5

 

His contention is that it is deficiency of service. The respondent took unnecessarily long time to change the pump and unnecessarily retained his vehicle. No evidence has been submitted by the respondents to show that on which date they have changed the pump. Hence, when the vehicle has been retained unnecessarily for a long period only for change of pump i.e. from 19.6.2004 to 4.10.2004 it is definitely deficiency in service and the appellant is liable to be compensated accordingly.

 

Looking to the facts of the case that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and it was unnecessarily retained by the respondents, an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be fair and reasonable for financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.

 

Further the contention of the respondents is that the District Forum has ordered for supply of mobile hand set and further Rs. 5000/- has been allowed which is quite reasonable and fair and no interference is needed.

 

In view of the above, the present appeal of the appellant is allowed and the compensation for mental pain and agony

6

 

and for financial loss is enhanced to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The compliance of the order shall be made within one month from the date of this order.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm