ELGI EQUIPMENTS LIMITED Vs. MALATHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, who is engaged in the business of Wheel Alignment of the vehicles, as the only source of her income, purchased a Wheel Aligner from the petitioner-M/s ELGI Equipments Ltd. on 31.05.2006 for a consideration of Rs.8,77,000/-. It is alleged that the machine was not in good working condition right from the date of erection and had to be repaired several times. It is alleged that the left side camera was not fit for wheel alignment and went out of order during the period of warranty. The complainant made a complaint in this regard to the petitioner, which asked it to contact Radial Training Centre/Opposite Party No.2. When the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2, it charged a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- from her and she was assured that the fault in the machine had been removed. It is further alleged that the right side camera of the machine developed fault on 09.09.2008 on account of defect, which had arisen during the warranty period of the machine. The machine therefore stopped functioning. When the complainant again approached the petitioner/opposite party no.1, she was asked to approach the opposite party no.2 but the defect was not removed. Being aggrieved from the defect in the product purchased by her, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking replacement of the machine along with compensation.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 inter-alia on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and in any case it was only a dealer of Opposite Party No.3/ Snap on Tool's Pvt. Ltd., who was the manufacturer of the said machine. It was however stated in the reply that they charged service charges only after the expiry of warranty period. The opposite party no.2 resisted the complaint on the ground that no charges were collected during the warranty period of one year and it was only an authorized service centre of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party No.3 resisted the complaint on the ground that there was no privity of contract between it and the complainant since the machine was sold by it to the opposite party no.1 on 'Principal to Principal' basis and the opposite party no.1 was not its agent.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the complaint against the petitioner/opposite party no.1 but dismissed the same against the opposite parties no.2 and 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/opposite party no.1 approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 10.07.2015, the State Commission disposed of the appeal with the following directions:-