STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
(Appeal No.167 of 2015)
( Against the order dated 10.06.2015 in complaint case no. 175 of 2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nalanda Biharsharif)
Nilam Kumar,
S/O- Late Damodar Prasad,
R/O- Village- Habibpura,
P.O.+ P.S.- Sohsarai,
District- Nalanda and another. Appellant.
VERSUS
Shri Mohan Hemant Singh,
General Manager (G.M),
(Service and Spare), Shankar
Equipment limited,
5th Floor, Adharshila Complex,
Gandi Maidan, Patna and others Respondents.
BEFORE,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.Sinha, President and
Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM(Rtd), Member
ORDER
15.05.2017
S.K Sinha President
The complaint alleging manufacturing defect in the engine of Hydrolic Backhoi loader being dismissed is under challenge. The only point of consideration as to whether the complainant was consumer as defined 2(i) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The complainant alleging manufacturing defect in the engine has been denied. It was however stated by the appellants (O.Ps) that in course of the use of the loader whenever complainant approached with any defect the same was immediately attended and defect removed which was minor in nature. In token of same complainant gave satisfaction letter. This apart the opposite parties took the stand that there is no allegations in the complaint that the aforesaid machine was purchased for livelihood and was used by means of self-employment. In fact the machine was purchased for commercial use in business for profit as such complainant was not a consumer.
3. The appellant as also Respondent brought on record the documents in support of their respective cases.
4. District Forum upon considering the case of the parties held that complainant is not consumer as defined under of the Act and also that there is no evidence to support allegation of manufacturing defect much less any technical report to support the allegation of manufacturing defect the complaint was as such dismissed.
5. The appellant as also respondent filed written notes of argument in support of their case.
6. We have considered case of the parties, and perused impugned order. The appellant could not show any illegality in the in the findings of the District Forum. There is no pleading to the effect in the complaint that the machine was purchased for the livelihood and the same was being used by means of self-employment and also what is the manufacturing defect? No evidence of any technical expert to substantiate the allegation.
7. We find that the District Forum has considered the case in correct perspective needs no interference.
In the result appeal stand dismissed.
Upendra jha S.K.Sinha
Member(M) President
Mukund
