SATISH KUMAR Vs. MASTER PIPES STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the complainant could be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act en titled to maintain the complaint. Satish Kumar purchased a pair of emery stones for his Flour Mill for a sum of Rs.2,300/- vide bill No.229 dated 26.2.1997 from the shop of the opposite party M/s. Master Pipes Stores, Muktsar. The same was accompanied by a guarantee for a period of six months. The cracks having appeared in the stones within a month of purchase, the opposite party was approached for replacement. Since it was not done, District Forum was approached with the complaint on August 11,1997. The opposite party took up the plea that the complainant had purchased the stones for commercial activity i. e. for running of the Flour Mill and hence he was not a consumer. The guarantee as referred to above was given by the manufacturer who was not impleaded as a party. Thus, the liability was disputed. The District Forum President as well as one of its Members inspected the spot and the stones and made their report of cracks having appeared in the stones. The District Forum, however, while disposing of the complaint on December 18,1997 held that the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the stones were purchased for commercial activity i. e. running of the Flour Mill and thus the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The present is not a simple case of purchase of goods for commercial purposes that Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act could be attracted to the case in hand. The contract of sale is accompanied by a contract of guarantee which is a contract of rendering service i. e. for replacement of the defective goods within a period of six months. That being the position, when there is a contract of sale of goods with contract of replacement of the defective goods within six months as guaranteed, the commercial activity would be irrelevant. The case of complainant would be covered by Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and in case of the deficiency in rendering service, the complainant would be entitled to the relief asked for. The approach of the District Forum holding the complainant to be not a consumer is not correct. He is held to be a consumer as defined. In view of the report of the District Forum of inspection of stones, cracks were found there on and within a period of guarantee the grouse was raised. It was expected of the opposite party to replace the stones as per terms and conditions of the guarantee which fact is not disputed. The representative of the respondent Mr. Rikhi Ram has argued that the manufacturer of the stones was not impleaded as a party on whose behalf the guarantee was given and no order against him for replacement of the stones can be passed. This contention is devoid of merits. The complainant is concerned with the shopkeeper from whom he, has purchased the goods accompanied by guarantee. It is left to the opposite party to get replacement of the defective stones from the manufacturer from whom he has purchased the same according to law. So far as complainant is concerned, he can not be denied relief against the opposite party from whom the goods were purchased with the guarantee as referred to above and the defect having occurred within the period of guarantee. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to either replace the defective stones or to refund the price of the stones along with 15% p. a. interest thereon w. e. f. the date of the sale till payment. Let it be done within a period of one month from receipt of copy of this order. It is left to the opposite party to get further replacement from the manufacturer at his own level. The complainant will get costs of litigation which are assessed at Rs.500/-.