STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Port Blair.
Org. Case No. 7 of 2002
Present 1. Justice S.N. Bhatacharjee
President, State Commission
2. Shri. D.P. Mukhopadhyay
Member, State Commission
3. Ms. G. Kaur
Member, State Commission
Mr. Rehman,
Secretary, Island Catrers Co.op Society Ltd.,
(a group of Hotel Management Students),
P.O. Haddo, Port Blair .......Complainant
Vs
M/s Hameeda Traders,
MB No. 31, MA Road,
Phoenix Bay, Port Blair ......Opposite party
Mr. D. Illango, Advocate .. .for complainant
Mr. Anti Prasanth Kumar . . . for opposite party
JUDGEMENT
The complainant is the Secretary of the Registered Cooperative Society Ltd.,. Styled Island Catrer Co-Operative Society formed by Hotel Management Students who are unemployed youth. The Society they purchased a Cannon Xerox Machine No. 4835 alongwith Stabilizer on 10.9.2001, as a price of Rs. I Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) on incurring a loan of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only ) from UCO Bank. The machine went out of order on the same day of its installation by the Service Engineer of the opposite party. On the report of the complainant the opposite party assured that the defect could be wiped out in course of rerunning the machine. The complainant continued to run the said machine but it did not show any mark of improvement. The complainant again informed the opposite party on 30.11.2001 and the opposite party sent its Service Engineer on 4.12.2001. The machine was taken by the opposite party through its Service Engineer on 6.12.2001. The said machine after having repaired was handed over to the complainant on 22.2.02 but after installation of the same it was found that the machine was not at all repaired as the papers were not coming out of the machine. Thereafter the complainant has informed the opposite party time and again till 25.5.02, when by a letter the opposite party categorically refused to repair the same. The Complainant then filed this case claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,7500/-.
2. The opposite party denied its liability to pay any compensation by stating that the complainant purchased a reconditioned Copier Machine without any warranty. The Machine was repaired at Chennai when it went out of order at a cost of Rs. 10.000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) and the same was delivered to the complainant in good condition, but it went out of order again due to its mishandling by the Society. The further defence of the respondent is that the complainant is not a consumer as the machine was purchased for commercial purpose and that the complainant is not maintainable as the same is filed by the Secretary instead of the registered society which is a juristic person.
3. At the time of repair the effort was made for a settlement between the parties through the intervention of the Commission. Pursuant to such tack of settlement the defective machine was produced before the Court on 25.9.02 as per the order of the Commission and various defects were pointed out by the Service Engineer attached to the opposite party. The opposite party agreed to take the machine repaired from the principal Office Chennai and to produce the same after repair before the State Commission by 16.1.03. The opposite party could not produce the machine in question after repair despite several adjournments.
4. The Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued before us that the complaint has been filed by the secretary although the Coop. Society was the purchaser as would be evident from the purchase receipt annexed to the complaint. Thee Society being a registered one can itself sue and be sued. The Secretary of the Society having no authority to file the complaint has no locus standi and the complaint should be dismissed. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that the Secretary being an official of the Society is competent to file the complaint. After having heard both the sides we are unable to subscribe to the view of the Learned Counsel of the opposite party. Under the Cooperative Societies Act and the Bye-Laws adopted there under the Secretary is the Executive Officer of the Society which is formed by Unemployed Youths for serving Self-employment. Admittedly, the Society purchased the Xerox machine in question for the benefit of all the members of the Society. The Society who is one of the beneficiaries of the transaction as also an official of the Society is competent to file the complaint. It is the Society and society only which can raise objection as to his authority or competency and not by the opposite party whose status is that of a seller or trader or service provider particularly after having entered into correspondence with the Secretary regarding the service of machine (vide its letter of 25.5.02 addressed to the Secretary, Annexure ‘D’). The Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short, the Act) seeks to protect the interest of Consumer by a simple and speedy quasi-judicious process and the right of a consumer or user of goods cannot be defeated by raising such technicalities. It is also permissible under the Act.
The Act has defined the word “Consumer” as any person who “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buy such goods ...when such use is made with the approval of such person. but does not include a person who obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose “.
4. The next objection of Mr. Kumar is that the Society used to procure contract from the Principal of Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkiya Mahavidyalaya. Port Blair for supply of Xeroxed copies with the help of the purchased Xerox machine which was being used for commercial purposes and as such the Complainant is not a consumer. The complaint should be dismissed on this ground also.
The complainant stated in the complaint that Society had been formed by unemployed students who completed Diploma in Hotel Management. This has not been disputed in the opposition. Annexure ‘B’ is the Xerox copy of the letter dated 17.5.2002 written on behalf of the Society to the Trader— opposite party which stated as under:
“As you know that it is a mean of our livelihood we are helpless since there is no income from the machine even we are not able to cater the needs of students. And still we are unable to pay loan instalments to the bank till date”
This part of the statement in the letter has not been disputed by the opposite party and there is no material to discredit such statement. A person using the goods purchased by him exclusively for earning livelihood is also a consumer. Act itself provides such a definition.
The next limb of the argument of Mr. Kuntar is that the opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation as the machine was reconditioned one within the knowledge of the complainants and there was no warranty. So it may go out of order any moment. The fact is that the opposite party took Rs. 1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) by selling the Xerox machine by granting a receipt to the complainant and the receipt does not indicate at all that it is a reconditioned machine. Be that as it may. The respondent took the machine for repair with an undertaking to return the same after repair. The undertaking could not be fulfilled and the machine which was purchased for rendering services was not given back to the complainant. So money and the machine both became the property of the respondent and the complainant lost both. We unhesitatingly hold that it is a clear case of deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to pay back the consideration money of Rs. 1 Lath (Rupees one lakh) along with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment. The opposite party shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the comp1ainant2 the cost of litigation before the Forum. Accordingly we direct him to make such payment within two months from this date. The parties will act on the Xerox signed copies to be attested by the Registrar.
