CREST AND CO Vs. MOHAN SINGH SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of hearing arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has produced affidavit of F. C. Sabharwal, General Manager of the appellant Company accompanied by copy of a notice issued by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar in some other case informing the party that Mr. Mohan Singh Sachdeva, Advocate, General and Legal Secretary of the Manufacturers' and Employers' Association and one Ashwani Kumar would be representing the Managing Director, The Doaba Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. The photo copy of provisions of Sec.36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has also been produced. Sub-section 3 thereto provided that no party towards industrial dispute shall be entitled to be represented by their legal practitioner in any conciliation proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before a Court (Labour Court ). This has been done primarily to assert that fax machine purchased by the complainant Mohan Singh Sachdeva, Advocate was for promoting his profits as a paid Secretary of various associations. Such documents produced at the appellate stage and that too at the argument stage cannot be taken on the record as additional evidence, more so, when to that extent there was no specific plea raised in the written statement, much less cogent, that while working as Secretary of such associations, he was entitled to appear before the Labour Court, he was making any profits in the sense of commercial activity to take him out of the purview of definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. This is nothing but venom spitting spree of a frustrated litigant who had failed before the District Forum and is in appeal.

(2.) The District Forum, Jalandhar on July 23, 1998 allowed the complaint filed by Mohan Singh Sachdeva, an Advocate of Jalandhar City against M/s. Crest and Company, the opposite party. A direction was given to the opposite party to refund Rs.18,500/- alongwith interest and 18% p. a. from the date of purchase of fax machine till payment. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- @ cost of Rs.2,000/- were also directed to be paid. Hence the aforesaid order has been challenged by the opposite party in this appeal.

(3.) Ux 106 Fax Machine was purchased by Mohan Singh Sachdeva, Advocate from the opposite party on December 10, 1986. There was guarantee of one year for proper functioning of the machine. Immediately thereafter, defects having occurred, twice the machine was repaired by the opposite party but still the defects persisted. District Forum was approached with the complaint on January 21, 1998. In the written statement filed, the opposite party took up the plea that the complainant was not a consumer as defined. There was no sale of the fax machine as no price had been paid by the complainant although it was promised to be paid. Defects in the machine were denied. The said machine was stated to have been given to the complainant on trial basis but was not sold. The District Forum accepted the stand of the complainant holding the complainant to be a consumer and finding defect in the machine, the impugned order was passed further observing that the machine having become absolete being old model, replacement could not be ordered.