Date of Filing:26/09/2016
Date of Order:07/5/2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Tuesday, the 7th day of May, 2019
C.C.No.451 /2016
Between
Dashrath Singh S/o.Subhash Singh,
Aged about 28 years, Occ: business,
R/o.H.No.19-1-708/1, Maharaj Gunj,
Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Tejaswini Equipments, to the Manager,
Flat No.114, 1st floor, Opp Kalpana Theater,
Gayathri Apts, Kavadiguda, Sec’bad
2. Elgi Equipments Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Trichy Road, Singanallur,
Coimbatore, Tamilnadu – 641005 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite Party No.2 : M/s. S.Srinivas Reddy
.
O R D E R
(By Smt. D.Nirmala, B.Com., LLB., Member on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 seeking directions to opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- or to replace or repair Motor pump and punish the culprits for their as per the law.
- The averments of the complaint are in brief that the compliant is a two wheeler mechanic by profession and he is running the bike service center under the name and style of Jai Bhavani Bike point beside Vasavi Bhavan, Umda Bazar, Doodh Bowli, Hyderabad since 2013. The complainant further submitted that the he purchased 1 HP Scooter Washer Motor for his business on dt.16-09-2013 from respondent No.1 with the Delivery Challan vide 723 for Rs.27,075/- with one year warranty period. The respondent No.2 is a manufacturer within 3 months of purchase, the motor stopped working. Immediately the complainant called the respondent No.1. The said respondent No.1 sending his men for repair. The problem is not rectified. While matter stood thus on 20-12-2014 i.e, after two months of warranty period the problem was started in the Motor regarding heating up within 10-15 min with unbearable sound and automatically. Then the complainant came to know that the opposite party sold the defective motor to the complainant . Thereafter the complainant made several calls to the concerned person of opposite party No.1 finally on 13-04-2016 service boy visited the shop and tried to rectify the problem. So he installed some of the parts and went away stating that some more parts are required to repair the machine. The said mechanic never turned up. The complainant further submitted that the respondent No.1 charged very high i.,e Rs.16,358.25 for duplicate parts the amount will not be more than Rs.5,000 to Rs.6,000/-. The problem was not rectified the complainant several times approached the concern person of the respondent but in vain. Hence the present complaint file for the above said relief.
- The respondent No.1 called absent entire proceedings of the case.
- The respondent No.2 filed written version denying the allegations made against this opposite party and stated that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Opposite party No.2 further submitted that the Motor purchased on 16-09-2013 on 20-12-2014 the problem had started in the Motor which is two months after the one year warranty period. The opposite party further submitted that the opposite party neither necessary nor proper party to the above complaint. The Motor in question was not manufactured or marketed by this opposite party No.2 or its subsidiary company M/s. ATS Elgi Limited. The complaint is not filed within two years after expiry of warranty period.
He further submitted that the motor in question was not one of the Motors marketed by the subsidiary M/s. ATS Elgi Ltd. The motor in question was manufactured by the opposite party is incorrect. The opposite party never appointed the 1st opposite party as its dealer/distributor for sale of the motors (vehicle washing Pumps). Hence alleged defect in motor in question cannot be attributed to this opposite party or its subsidiary as it was not sold by them. The opposite party further submitted that with regard to the spare parts of the package did not confirm mandatory package of the product for the opposite party cannot be found fault with. There is no knowledge with regards to lodging a complaint before DCIC, Hyderabad to this opposite party. If the complainant had purchased motor from the authorized dealer of the subsidiary of the opposite party then the motor would have certainly come to the authorized service centre of the subsidiary of this opposite party and the agents of the opposite party would have attended to the problem in term of the service policy. But the complainant never whispered in the complaint that he consulted the authorized agents of the opposite party or the motor was referred to them at any point of time. So there was no cause of action for the complaint to file the above complaint against this opposite party on any of the alleged dates. So the present complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- The complainant and the opposite party No.2 filed their Evidence affidavits and
written arguments. Complainant got marked Exs. A1 to A5 documents on behalf
of him.
Heard both sides.
- On the basis of pleadings, evidence affidavit, documents and arguments the
following points are necessary for determination.
Points for determination:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer within purview of 2 (d) of C.P.Act 1986?
- Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled any relief as prayed for?
- Is any other relief?
Point No.1: The contention of the opposite party No.2 is complainant is not a consumer within the means of Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because the motor in question was purchased on 16-09-2013 by the complainant for his business purpose which is admitted in the complaint and also affidavit we perused the complaint and affidavit evidence filed by the complainant is clearly written that 1 HP Scooter washer motor for his business. In his own admission in the complaint and affidavit evidence.
Who is a consumer ?
‘consumer’ as per section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 “Consumer means any person who 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 used 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”;
We are of the view that the complainant is not a consumer within the means Sec. 2 (1) (d). As such the present complaint is not maintainable. The point answered accordingly infavour of the opposite party and against the complainant.
Point No.2 &3: Findings given on point No.1 no need to discuss on point No.2 &3.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 7th day of May , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1-delivery challan dt.16-09-2013
Ex.A2-invoice dt.13-07-2016
Ex.A3- copy of photographs and bill dt.21-07-2014
Ex.A4- copy of complaint in District consumer information centre
Ex.A5- notice dt.04-08-2016
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party No.2 :– Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
