M T JAMES Vs. P M BABURAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the common judgement dated 29.12.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in appeal Nos. 366 of 2010, 387 of 2010 and 222 of 2011. Petitioner was OP No.1 before the District Forum from whom the complainant, respondent No.1 herein, had purchased 180 KVA diesel generator set for getting steady and uninterrupted electric supply for complainant's hotel. Respondent No.2 was OP No.2 and is the maintenance agent for the generator set in question and respondent No.3 was OP No.3 and is the manufacturer of the generator set.

(2.) Briefly stated, the factual matrix of this case relevant for its disposal are that the complainant who is the Managing Director of Hotel Bezota International, Thiruvalla, which is a 3-Star Hotel, purchased a 180 KVA diesel generator set from the petitioner for his hotel to ensure steady and uninterrupted electric supply. The complainant paid Rs.9,75,000/- by way of demand draft and cash as the price/consideration for the generator set and installation charges. The generator set was installed at the premises of the complainant's hotel and commissioned on 10.7.2008. As per the allegation, on commissioning itself, it was noticed that the sound of the set was beyond normal limits. Even thereafter, the generator machine broke down and started giving problems. Keeping in view frequent problems faced by the complainant in regard to the functioning of the generator set and not feeling satisfied with the response of the OPs to the complaints made by him, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and prayed for an order for directing the OPs to replace the generator set with a brand new one which will comply with the statutory requirements or in the alternative allow the complainant to realize Rs.9 lakhs from the OPs given by the complainant for the generator set in addition to Rs.2 lakhs as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant along with cost of the proceedings. The petitioner along with OP-2 filed a common reply and respondent No.3/OP-3 filed a separate reply to the complaint. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs opposed the complaint on several grounds. It was also contended that the complainant is not a consumer for the purchase of the generator set because it was purchased for his hotel business which is nothing but a commercial purpose and as such the complaint itself was not maintainable before the consumer fora.

(3.) After hearing the parties and considering the evidence led by them in support of their cases, the District Forum vide order dated 13.5.2010 allowed the complaint in terms of the following order:-