Dated: 12.07.2024

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/86/2020 on the file of DCDRC, Kalaburagi, aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2022. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.
3. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be whether impugned order dated 28.10.2022 passed in CC/86/2020 by DCDRC, Kalaburagi does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?
4. It is not in dispute that complainant/appellant herein had purchased KA-32/B-3314 in the year 2010, while OP2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle.  It is submitted that OP1 is a service centre and complainant on 03.12.2018 bought the said vehicle to the workshop for repair and OP1 had estimated against all repairs in a sum of Rs.6,93,704/- and as per terms and conditions complainant is under an obligation to pay 50% of the estimation which comes to Rs.3,46,852/-.  In such circumstances, the findings of the District Commission, holding that JCB is a commercial vehicle and the service incidental to the use of JCB machine are all of commercial nature and forming an opinion that complainant is not a consumer as defined under CPA, 2019 and as a result dismissing the complaint, could be held un-sustainable under law is   liable to be set aside.  We have to observe herein that the  relief sought in the complaint is entirely different was not properly perceived by the DCDRC. Further to be noted herein that the JCB was purchased in the year 2010 and he had handed over JCB to service centre/workshop for repair which are the issues to be decide by the District Commission. In other words considering the year of purchase of the vehicle and the date of services availed    are to be examined and  not the manufacturing defect or any other  issues, since facts narrated in the complaint discloses, vehicle/JCB manufactured by OP1 as on the date of handing over to workshop was not under warranty.  In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer a decision of the  Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583 wherein para-24 held –

“where the purpose for which a person has bought is a commercial purpose within the meaning of definition of expressing consumer in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.”

In view of the above ratio, we are of the view that DCDRC has committed grave error in holding that the dispute raised by complainant as against service centre is not maintainable on the ground that he is not a consumer has to be held unsustainable and as a result, we proceed to allow the appeal.Consequently, set aside the order dated 28.10.2022 passed in CC/86/2020 on the file of DCDRC, Kalaburagi with a direction to readmit the case and decide the case on merits affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible not later than 03 months from the date of receipt of the order.

5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*