MEERA AND CO LTD Vs. CHINAR SYNTEX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 11.7.2003 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 19.9.2000 of a District Forum whereby on the complaint filed by respondent, the petitioner/opposite party was directed to refund amount of Rs. 41,500.45 with interest, etc.

(2.) Respondent purchased one 62.5 KVA diesel generating set from the petitioner vide D. Challan No. 24177 dated 14.2.1994 after making payment of Rs. 1,91,000/-. Petitioner gave warranty of one year and assured the respondent to carry out repairs/replacements of the spare parts free of cost in case of any fault within the warranty period. Generating set developed some defects in December, 1994. On complaint being made, the petitioner assured to send mechanic to rectify the defect, but it did not do so. Generating set went out of order completely on 26.1.1995. Respondent sent the generating set to the petitioner on 30.1.1995 for carrying out repairs but the petitioner insisted for payment. Under compelling circumstances, the respondent by the letter dated 1.2.1995 agreed to pay for the repairs at cost basis. Petitioner charged amount of Rs. 41,500.45 from the respondent. After repairs, generating set was put into use on 12.2.1995. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner mainly on the grounds that warranty was extended by the manufacturer who had not been arrayed as party in the complaint; service was to be effected by New Krishi Sewak, the dealer of manufacturer; respondent was not a consumer as the generating set was purchased for commercial purpose.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Gupta for petitioner in support of revision, pressed the grounds which the petitioner had taken in written version. Petitioner does not dispute purchase of generating set from it by the respondent on 14.2.1994; warranty of one year having been given to the respondent; generating set having developed defects for rectification whereof amount of Rs. 41,500.45 was charged, within warranty period. Since the generating set was sold by the petitioner, it cannot evade liability for repairs/replacement of spare parts on the ground of manufacturer of the generating set with whom the respondent did not have any privity of contract, having not been impleaded as party to the complaint or service was to be affected by New Krishi Sewak. Further, respondent will be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even if the generating set was sold for commercial purpose to the respondent as the defects therein developed within warranty period of one year. If any authority is needed on that settled position in law, reference may be made to the decision in Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr., I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC). There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the said Act. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.