Complainant : Balakrishnan, S/o Mundanthara Ayyappu,
Pannithadam Desom, Chiramanengad Village,
P.O. Chiramanengad, Thrissur – 680 604.
(By Advs K.M. Nowshad & E.A. Zeenath, Thrissur)
Opposite Party : Jayadevan @ Jayan, S/o Karuvanveettil Velayudhan,
Marathamkode Puthiyamathur Desom,
Chiranmanengad Village, P.O. Marathamkode,
Thrissur – 680 604.
(By Adv. A. D. Benny, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- Complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant who runs an establishment namely Soorya Wood Industries, in June 2014 entrusted the opposite party with the repair work of 2 compressors used in his establishment. It is also stated that the complainant advanced the opposite party a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards repairing the same. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party dismantled the two compressors and carried some costly parts with him for repair, but the same have not been returned after repairs. Consequently the complainant had to hire two compressors from outside for completing the wood works in the establishment which costed him Rs.200/- per compressor per day for a period of 6 months. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and seeks directing the opposite party to repair the compressor parts and refit the same in the compressors, apart from other relief of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
On notice from the Commission, the opposite party filed version.
3) Version of the Opposite party :
The opposite party primarily challenges the maintainability of the complaint as the same relates to a commercial establishment owned by the complainant. Further he states that the complainant owes him a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards the repair works done in the past. In respect of the repair works in dispute the opposite party claims to have repaired the parts, but alleges that the complainant did not permit him to refit the same in the compressors. He also stated that the complainant did not pay him any money at all for the disputed repair works.
4) Evidence :
The complainant produced documentary evidence that had been marked Exht.P1 to P3, apart from proof affidavit, deposition and argument notes. Exht. P1 is copy of the lawyer notice that he sent to the opposite party, Exht. P2 - pertinent card of acknowledgment and Exht. P3 - reply to lawyer notice. The opposite party produced one document that is marked Exht. R1 which is copy of the Exht. P3 document. The Opposite party does also have version, deposition and argument notes on his part.
5) Points to be deliberated :
(i) Whether the complainant comes under the expression of consumer
/ maintainability ?
If the complaint is maintainable ;
(ii) Whether deficiency in service occurred on the part of opposite
party ?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation and
costs ?
Point No.(i)
It appears essential that the maintainability of the complaint has to be considered at the outset itself. As stated supra, the complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service relating to the repair works of the compressors used in the complainant’s establishment namely ‘Soorya Wood Industries’. The opposite party alleges that the complainant’s establishment is a commercial establishment and hence the complainant doesn’t fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant himself has no claim that his is not a commercial establishment or that he runs the same for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Moreover on cross examination, the complainant has unambiguously deposed that he simultaneously runs a business establishment abroad. The complainant further deposed that he conducts foreign visits and that he had appointed a person to oversee the business of the establishment under reference. It is thus evident that the complainant runs his establishment in question not with the objective of earning his livelihood. Moreover he also deposed that there are nine employees in his establishment comprising one person who oversees the business, four carpenters & four painters, and that more labourers would be engaged as and when necessary, based on the volume of work. The opposite party’s deposition makes it explicit that the establishment in question is of commercial nature. Therefore, the inference that the Commission could arrive at, is that the complainant’s establishment namely Soorya Wood Industries is a commercial establishment and that the compressors used therein, in respect of the repairs of which deficiency in service is alleged, are used for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant falls out of the ambit of the expression of “Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus point No (i) is proved against the complainant. Needless to mention, the other points referred to above warrant no consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the same view in Laxmi Engineering works Vs PSG Industrial Institute (AIR 1995 SC 1428).
Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of April 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Exht. P1 lawyer notice that he sent to the opposite party
Exht. P2 pertinent card of acknowledgment
Exht. P3 reply to lawyer notice
Complainant’s Witness :
PW 1 Balakrishnan
Opposite Party’s Exhibits :
Exht. R1 copy of Ext. P3.
Opposite party’s Witness :
RW 1 Jayadevan
Id/- Member
