TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Tarlochan Singh filed against order of District Forum, Amritsar dated February 5, 1997, whereby his complaint was dismissed without going into merits of the complaint with costs of Rs.500/- holding that he was not a consumer as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) Only brief facts are required to be noticed as on merits this Commission at this stage is not required to make any comments or decision. Jyoti opposite party purchased new Maruti car. She sold the same to Tarlochan Singh within the period of guarantee/warranty given by Maruti Udyog Limited, manufacturers of the car (OP ). Defect having occurred in the functioning of the car. District Forum was approached. Objection being taken by the opposite parties that the complainant was not consumer as defined, the same prevailed and the complaint was dismissed. Sec.2 (1) (d) defines the same as under: " (d) "consumer" means any person who- (i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promissed or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promissed, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person. Sub-clause (i) as reproduced above covers the cases of the goods purchased for personal use as a consumer. For the make of arguments, it may be observed that Tarlochan Singh being not a direct purchaser of the Maruti Car from the manufacturer or its dealer, may not be a consumer as such. However with a contract of sale of goods is accompanied by warranty given by the manufacturer or seller of the goods for replacement of defective parts within certain period, it is not a simple case of goods, it is also a case of providing services for consideration. It is Clause (ii) of Sec.2 (1) (d), which would be attracted to such a case. The hirer of the services, be a purchaser of the goods i. e. Jyoti in the present case of course would be a consumer as defined as stated above. The definition of the consumer is wider in the case of hiring services and the beneficiary of such services is also a consumer as defined. Tarlochan Singh being a purchaser from Jyoti of the Maruti car is entitled to take benefit of the warranty given by the manufacturer of the Maruti car during the period of warranty i. e. one year. Thus, he being beneficiary is held to be a consumer and entitled to file complaint before the District Forum. On merits as discussed above, no comment is being made. The District Forum will dispose of the complaint according to law. Parties present are directed to appear before the District Forum on April 16,1993. This appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, is set aside. The case is sent back to the District Forum for decision according to law. The parties are directed to appear there on April 16,1998. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 manufacturer and dealer of the car would pay costs of the appeal to the complainant, which are assessed at Rs.500/-.