KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 782/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 12.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 35/2013 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR             : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Quality Machines and Spares, J.S. Complex, Opp: Temple, Valanjambalam, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.

2. Jai Industries, Near Ajit Mill, Cross Road, B/s Rakhial, Odhav Flyover Rakhial, Odhava, Main Road Rakhial, Ahmadabad, Gujarat-380 023.

(By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Ravilal V., Veliyil Puthen Veedu, Idakadathi P.O., Mukkoottuthara-686 510, Kottayam.

                             (By Adv. V.K. Prasanth)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 35/2013 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short “the District Commission”).

2.  The complainant purchased a planer machine on 30.05.2012 from the 1^st opposite party.  The said machine was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  The said machine was installed at the house of the complainant.  However, the said machine had shown some defects even from the beginning itself.  The matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party.  The supervisor of the 1^st opposite party inspected the machine and intimated the matter to the 2^nd opposite party.  On 19.11.2012, two beds of the machine were delivered by the 1^st opposite party to the premises of the complainant.  However, the 1^st opposite party was not prepared to connect the beds to the machine, even after repeated requests.  In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

3.  The opposite parties filed a joint version admitting the purchase of the machine by the complainant.  It was also admitted that two beds were supplied to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  The opposite parties would further contend that it was because of the usage of the machine in an improper manner that the defects occurred.  It was further contended that the complainant could connect the said beds to the machine without the assistance of the opposite parties. 

4.  Before the District Commission, the proof affidavit was filed by the complainant.  Exhibits A1 series and A2 were marked for the complainant.  The Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW1 and Exhibits C1 and C1 series were also marked. 

5.  After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to fix the bed to the machine and to ensure that the planer would work in proper condition.  The District Commission also directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 

6.  When this matter had been taken up for hearing on 14.03.2017, this Commission appointed Advocate V.K. Prasanth to appear for the respondent, as the respondent had expressed his inability to engage a lawyer by himself. 

7.  Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Advocate Sri T.J. Lakshmanan and the learned counsel Sri. V.K. Prasanth for the respondent.  We have also perused the records. 

8.  It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a planer machine from the 1^st opposite party on 30.05.2012.  It is also not disputed that the said machine was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.   Since the machine had some defects, the supervisor of the 1^st opposite party, on the request of the complainant, inspected the machine.  Thereafter, two beds were supplied to the complainant.  The transportation charges for the said beds had been paid by the complainant.  However, the beds were not connected to the machine. 

9.  The argument of the learned counsel Sri. T.J. Lakshmanan is of two folds. The first argument is that since the transaction involved was a commercial transaction, the complainant would not come within the ambit of the term ‘consumer’ as defined under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ for short) and consequently, the service rendered by the opposite parties cannot be said to be ‘service’ as provided under Sec. 2(1)(o) of the Act and in the said circumstances, the District Commission was not justified in allowing the complaint.  The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the interest ordered by the District Commission is exorbitant. 

10.  As regards the first argument, the complainant has clearly stated in the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief that the machine was purchased for his livelihood.  The opposite parties in their version would also admit that the machine could not be used for heavy weight purpose.  It was contended by the opposite parties that the machine was a light weight multipurpose machine, mainly used for the carpenter work in a single-phase domestic connection.  Since the opposite parties had alleged that the transaction is a commercial transaction, it was the duty of the opposite parties to prove the same.  However, the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to discharge the burden of the opposite parties to prove that the transaction involved in this case is a commercial transaction.  That apart, the complainant was not cross-examined.  Therefore, the evidence of the complainant remains unchallenged and hence, the evidence of the complainant that the machine was purchased for his livelihood has to be accepted. In view of the above, and in the absence of any material supporting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard.

11.  It is not disputed that the opposite parties did not connect the beds to the machine.  It was the duty of the opposite parties to connect the beds to the machine.  Since that was not done, there can be no doubt that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In the said circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the District Commission in this regard.  The District Commission had only directed the opposite parties to connect the beds to the machine and make sure that the planer was working in proper condition.  The District Commission also ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and costs of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). The compensation and the costs ordered by the District Commission do not appear to be disproportionate or harsh, calling for interference by this Commission.  However, the District Commission had ordered interest at the rate of 15% per annum, which is on the higher side.  In the said circumstances, we modify and reduce the interest to 9% per annum. 

In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part, confirming the order passed by the District Commission in every respect,  except to the extent of modifying and reducing the interest ordered by the District Commission from 15% to 9% per annum.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment. 

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                             AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER     

jb