HINDUSTAN POWER PLUS LIMITED Vs. SANTOSH DRILLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 716 of 2003, wherein the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 2206/2006, namely, Santosh Drillers, had filed a complaint against three opposite parties, namely, Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., Hindustan Power Plus Limited and TIL Limited alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint by the complainant Santosh Drillers, were that the complainant had purchased a compressor with caterpillar 3406 DITA engine along with necessary parts for a consideration of Rs. 14 lakh. The caterpillar was supplied on 31.1.1997 by Hindustan Power Plus Limited. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. is acting agent of Hindustan Power Plus Limited. The rationale for filing the complaint was, that the engine of the machine was found not working properly, allegedly having inherent manufacturing defect in the compressor as well as in the later engine. Admittedly, complaints were attended to by the opposite party's agent but when the machine was not functioning properly despite the complainant having been made to spend Rs. 1 lakh for repairs within the warranty period, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint with a direction to the complainant to file civil suit in accordance with the law if he so advised. The District Forum dismissed the complaint based on the premise that the complainant Santosh Drillers is not a 'consumer' within the definition as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the machine had been purchased for commercial purpose.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. and Hindustan Power Plus Limited to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, the amount which he had spent on getting the repairs made within the warranty period, along with cost of Rs. 1,000. It is against this order that two separate revision petitions - one (R.P. No. 2206/2006) by the complainant, Santosh Drillers for enhancement of the compensation and another (R.P. No. 1173/2006) by the manufacturer of the caterpillar, namely, Hindustan Power Plus Limited, has been filed before us. Revision Petition No. 1773/2006