PALAM TRACTORS AND ORS Vs. JAMIR AHMMED SON OF BASHIR AHMMED AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-5-3
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 07,2010

Palam Tractors And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Jamir Ahmmed Son Of Bashir Ahmmed And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ALL these appeals are directed against the order passed by District Forum, Bilaspur in Consumer Complaint No. 144/2006, as such these were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
(2.) JAMIR Ahmmed, hereinafter to be referred to as, "the complainant" filed the complaint against Palam Tractors, hereinafter to be referred to as "the O. P. No. 1" and also against Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. , hereinafter to be referred to as "the O. P No. 2", alleging deficiency in service against both of them before the District Forum below.
(3.) THIS complaint was allowed on 18.3.2009 in the following terms: "12. The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered and directed to replace the engine of the vehicle three wheeler (Auto Rickshaw) bearing registration No. HP 24 B -0266 purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 on 18.2.2005 vide bill/cash memo No. 727, dated 18.2.2005 copy annexure C -1 with new engine free from any defects within 7 days from the date of producing the three wheeler in the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 failing which the complainant shall be entitled to refund of the cost of three wheeler to the tune of Rs. 1,89,900/ - with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i. e. 10.10.2006 till realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to compensation for causing harassment and financial loss, which we assess at Rs. 20,000/ - besides cost of the complaint in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. " Complainant has filed appeal for enhancement of compensation and cost, whereas common prayer made by OPs No. 1 and 2 in their appeals is that the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial use by the complainant and not for earning his livelihood as such he was neither a consumer nor anyone of them to be a service provider. As such there was no consumer dispute between the parties. Therefore, according to both of them, District Forum below erred while passing the impugned order. Both of them have prayed for allowing their appeals by setting aside the impugned order, and consequently dismissing the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.