(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 17.10.002 of the C.D.R.F., Malappuram in O.P. No. 189/2001. The complaint in the said O.P. 189/2001 was filed by the appellant herein as the complainant against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as Opposite Parties claiming replacement of the defective cabin and spare parts fitted to the insured vehicle and also for the refund of the excess amount of Rs. 25,000 with compensation and costs. The above said claim was disputed by the Opposite Parties. They also raised the contention that the complaint filed as O.P. 189/2001 is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The lower Forum accepted the objection raised by the Opposite Parties that the complainant is not the consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The lower Forum accepted the objection raised by the Opposite Parties that the complainant is not the consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Thereby the complaint in O.P. 189/2001 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Forum below the present appeal is filed.
(2.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, the appellant/complainant was represented by the Power of Attorney Holder Mr. U. Unniyan. The respondents/Opposite Parties are represented by the Counsel of their choice. The authorized representative of the appellant argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties supported the findings and conclusions of the lower forum and requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
(3.) POINTS that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellant/complainant can be treated as a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act? (ii) Is there any legally sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.10.2002 passed by C.D.R.F. Malappuram in O.P. No. 189/2001? Point Nos. (i) and (ii) :