BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 1626 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.No.16 OF 2005
DISTRICT FORUM SANGAREDDY MEDAK DISTRICT
Between:
A.Arjun S/o A.Rama Krishna
Aged about 59 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Natnyapally Village, Narsapur Mandal
Medak District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. Laxmi Sai Tractors Authorised Dealer of
L & T John Deer Ltd., O/o 6-27-21,
Plot No.21, Opp: IDPL Fire Station
Balanagar, Hyderabad.
2. Laxmi Sai Tractors Authorised Dealer of L & T
John Deer Ltd., Branch Medak at Medak,
Ch. Laxman Rao S/o Rajeshwar, aged 36 years
Occ: Aged of L & T John Deer Ltd., R/o Konyal
Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the appellant Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondents Sri B.S.Prasad
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Medak passed in C.D.No.16 of 2005.
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant is an agriculturist. On 21.6.2004 he purchased a Tractor of L & T John Deere Ltd., (5103 S 42-LP) for development of his agricultural land and for hire purpose. The appellant purchased the said Tractor for a consideration of Rs.3,95,625/- from the respondent no.1 through their agent respondent no.3. The respondent no.2 is the branch office of respondent no.1. Within a week from the date of its purchase the tractor posed problems while starting and the matter was reported to the respondents. The respondent no.1 sent their mechanic who attended the repairs. Thereafter starting problem in the engine of the tractor begun to repeat and this time the tractor was shifted to the garage of the respondent no.1 at Hyderabad. Even after its repairs the tractor suffered the same starting problem. Again the respondent no.1 sent their mechanic and this time the defect was found in bosh pump. In spite of one year guarantee the respondent no.1 collected repairing charges of the bosh pump.
The tractor was hypothecated to L & T Finance Limited and was insured with IFFCO-TOKIO on a premium of Rs.5,500/-. As per the agreement with the L & T Finance, the appellant had to clear the loan by paying half yearly instalments at the rate of Rs.54,250/-. The tractor had not run more than 550 kms and during this period it was given on hire to forest range section Gummadidala Medak Dist. for an amount of Rs.250/- per hour for 10 hours a day. On the fifth day of the lease period, the tractor failed to work. The forest department paid Rs.10,000/- to the appellant towards the four days’ lease. The appellant could have earned Rs.6.5 lakhs if the tractor was in good working condition and he could have got profit to the extent of Rs.4 lakhs. since a defective tractor was sold to him, the appellant approached the District Forum seeking for refund of the amount of Rs.4,79,750/- with interest and costs.
The respondents no.1 and 2 resisted the claim on the ground that the appellant is not a consumer and there was no consumer relationship between the appellant and them. The appellant purchased the tractor for his agricultural purpose and for hiring it as well. It was stated that the cause for damage to the bosch pump of the tractor was the appellant’s intentional mishandling of the tractor. The tractor was purchased for commercial purpose. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
The District Forum dismissed the complaint for the reason that the appellant was making use of the tractor for commercial purpose.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed this appeal on the ground that the District Forum failed to consider that he was a farmer and owner of 30 acres of land and he purchased the tractor for the purpose of development of his land which is the main purpose.
The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the relief prayed for?
There is no dispute of the fact that on 21.6.2004 the appellant purchased the tractor from the respondent no.1 for a consideration of Rs.3,95,625/-. The respondents contended that as the tractor was given on lease to the forest department Medak which is a commercial activity, the appellant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. It is true and admitted by the appellant in the very complaint he filed before the District Forum that he had given the tractor on hire to the forest department, Medak and the tractor posed problem on the fifth day of the lease resulting loss to the appellant as the forest department paid the lease an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the first four days only. Therefore, it is clear that the tractor was leased for commercial purpose. However, it cannot be lost sight that the problem was frequently repeated whenever the tractor was functioning and all the problems being repeated even after the tractor was repaired by the respondents. The appellant is a farmer and owner of 30 acres of land which fact is not disputed by the respondents. The main source of livelihood of the appellant is agriculture and the same is evident by the extent of the land he possessed and the purpose for which the tractor was purchased i.e., for the purpose of development of his land.
In order to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, the complainant has to satisfy the requirement of Sec. 2(1)(d)(i), the complainant has to fit into the definition of consumer which require either the goods he purchased must not be for the purpose of resale or for any commercial purpose and an exception to the commercial purpose is that the complainant should use the goods purchased exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment.
Sec. 2(1)(d) reads as follows:
(d) “consumer” means any person who-
(i) 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.
[Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause (i), “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:]
The vigour of the section is controlled by the explanation given thereto which goes to show that a person who buys certain goods is still a consumer in spite of his use of the goods for commercial purpose provided the use is meant for the purpose of eking out his livelihood by means of self employment. The appellant would fit into the definition of consumer so far as the period of warranty which is one year from the date of purchase of the tractor in regard to the service to be rendered by the respondents by way of repairs to the tractor. The tractor was purchased on 21.6.2004. The appellant is entitled to the service of the respondents till 20.6.2005 for all or any problems or defects developed in the tractor during the period. The appellant has not sought any relief in regard to the service to be rendered by the respondents during the warranty period. The tractor was roadworthy at the time of filing of the complaint. In the absence any request for service during the warranty period by the appellant, we do not propose to grant any relief thereto. However, in regard to the claim for refund of the price of the tractor, the appellant cannot be held to be a consumer as the tractor was used for commercial purpose. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the District Forum.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
PRESIDING MEMBER
PRESIDENT
Dt. 05.06.2009
