PSEB V/S Piara Singh - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Kapurthala

CC/07/165

Piara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Mohit Kapoor

17 Jul 2008

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
Building No. b-XVII-23, 1st Floor, fatch Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/165

Piara Singh						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. A.K.SHARMA 2. Surinder Mittal

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Piara Singh

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. PSEB

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Sh.Mohit Kapoor

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

earning his livelihood, no commercial purpose is involved and, as such, is a consumer dispute. , XX XX XX State Commission reported as Anasuva Vs. Sil Tech Industries in which it was clearly held that XX XX Consumer Protection Act, 1986-, Section 2(1 )( d)- Consumer Commercial purpose. The complainant purchase the machine for the purpose of manufacturing Gulkhand by way of self employment-The purchase of machine by the complainant does not come within the exclusion clause-The complainant held to be a consumer. XX XX There is also another case reported as M/s Dunlop India Ltd. and another vs. Kashi Kant Mishra and another 2001 Consumer Reports 435 wherein it was held that: XX XX Unit for tyre retrading-complaiant had established and tyres retreading Unit but it does not mean that the same is a commercial venture undertaken by the complainant- Nothing which may indicate that the unit which was established by the complainant for retreading of old tyres in any way was a commercial activity-It was merely an activity by the complainant for his self employment so that the complainant may earn his livelihood. XX XX Therefore we hold that complainant is a consumer as defined in section 2(d)ii of the Act ibid In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we quash the impunged supplementary bill dated 12/2/2007 as illegal, null and void with further direction to opposite parties to pay to the complainant monetary compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of deficiency in service and for mental agony and physical sufferings besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma ) 17-7-2008 Member President.

......................A.K.SHARMA
......................Surinder Mittal