Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/402/2021

Hotel Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Puneet Sharma

28 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 402/2021

 

Hotel Bansal, Circular Road, Jaghina Gate, Bharatpur through Prop. Mahesh Chand Bansal

Vs.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Head office Plot No. 51, Surajpur Kasana Road, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida through Director & ors.

 

 

Date of Order 28.7.2022

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Acting President

Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh- Member

 

Present:

Mr.Puneet Sharma learned counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ajayraj Tantia learned counsel for the respondents

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, ACTING PRESIDENT )

 

2

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant against the order of learned District Consumer Commission, Bharatpur dated 8.7.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.279/2018 whereby the complaint of appellant/complainant has been dismissed.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that the appellant /complainant filed a complaint averring therein that he has a hotel in the name of ' Hotel Bansal ' which is being run for earning his livelihood through self employment. For this hotel he purchased 40 air conditioners on 9.9.2016 for consideration of Rs.10,69,400/- but these air conditioners were defective. These air conditioners worked satisfactorily for some time but thereafter various defects cropped up in these air conditioners viz. no proper cooling, making noise etc. These defects could not be cured despite service by respondent/non-complainant no. 3 Service Centre. Thereafter upon revelation by respondent/non-complainant no. 2 & 3 regarding AMC facility the appellant/complainant availed the same by paying Rs.87,792/- through cheque on 27.2.2018. Due to defect in the air conditioners the complainant had to suffer loss in his hotel business. The air conditioners were

3

 

having manufacturing defect and the respondents have sold defective air conditioners to the complainant and had declined to replace the defective air conditioners and also declined to refund the amount.

 

The respondents/ non-complainants had more or less denied the allegations against them in the averments of complainant and had pleaded that no manufacturing defect, whatsoever was there in the air conditioners procured by the complainant.

 

The learned DCC has dismissed the complaint by holding that since the complainant is running business of hotel and had procured the air conditioners for running the hotel business as such the complainant does not fall within the meaning of sec. 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned DCC has also mentioned that even though the appellant/complainant has pleaded in his complaint that he is running the hotel for earning his livelihood by self employment but the learned DCC has held that the complainant has failed to establish that he is earning his livelihood out of hotel business only. As such the learned DCC

4

 

Bharatpur had, without going into merits of the case dismissed the complaint of the appellant/ complainant on the above ground only.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that the complainant had specifically pleaded that he is running the hotel business as self employment for earning livelihood and as such there was no denial or controversion of this plea of complainant but the learned DCC has on his own without any objection of respondents decided as above which is not sustainable. According to learned counsel for the appellant/complainant this case deserves to be remanded back for being considered on merits.

 

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents/non-complainants has contended that the findings of the learned DCC are perfect in the eye of law. He has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 4151 of 2011 ( M/s. Bagalkot Tiles Vs. Dr.S.D.Indikar ) decided on 17.11.2017.

 

We have pondered upon the rival contentions and have

5

 

gone through the record.

 

In the case M/s. Bagalkot Tiles Vs. Dr.S.D.Indikar (supra) referred by the learned counsel for the respondents/non-complainants the main emphasis of Hon'ble NCDRC was that the respondent/complainant did not plead that he was running the Sagar Deluxe Hotel to eke-out his livelihood by self employment. In our view this revision does not provide any support to the respondents/non- complainants because in the present case admittedly the appellant/complainant has made pleading that he is running the hotel for earning his livelihood by self employment. Moreover in the reply the respondents/non-complainants have also not controverted the above pleading of the appellant/complainant. The learned DCC has, in our humble view traversed beyond pleading and has held that the complainant has failed to establish that he is earning livelihood out of hotel only.

 

In our view in the given circumstances when complainant has specifically pleaded that he is running the hotel business for earning his livelihood by self employment

6

 

and the same has not even been controverted by the respondents/ non-complainants, it was not desirable from the learned DCC to give a finding against the appellant/complainant. As such in our humble view this matter deserves consideration on merits and for this purpose we deem it proper to remand back the case to the learned DCC for hearing both the sides on merits and decide the matter afresh.

 

On the basis of above discussions the impugned order dated 8.7.2021 of the learned DCC Bharatpur is set aside and the case is remanded back with the above direction.

 

Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned

DCC Bharatpur on 16.8.2022.

 

(Shobha Singh) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Acting President

 

 

nm