CHAIRMAN, BPL ENGINEERING LTD Vs. HANUMANT NARAYAN SHENDKAR
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Chairman, Bpl Engineering Ltd
Hanumant Narayan Shendkar
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal filed by M/s.BPL Engineering Ltd./org.O.P. is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no.109/98 on 6/4/99, whereby the O.P.nos.1 -3 have been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.20 lakhs together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 10/5/1997 till the date of order. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: -
(2.) COMPLAINANT had purchased LCD Colour Projector Model no.220P on 21/2/97 and made payment by demand draft of Rs.22,000/ - and Rs.1.98 lakhs on 6/2/97 and 21/2/97 respectively. Complainant had availed loan from Janseva Sahakari Bank, Saswad branch for the purchase of the said Projector. It is allegation of the complainant that the Projector suffered frequent non -functioning during the period from 22/5/97 to 26/12/97. Due to non -functioning of the Projector, complainant suffered loss in running the Mini Theatre at his village for period of 11 to 17 days on each occasion. According to complainant, on 17/12/97, the complainant approached O.P.no.3 for removing the defect of the said Projector. However, O.P. could not remove the defect of dust invasion resulting into poor picture on account of layer of dust suffered by inner panels and lenses of the Projector. The complainant by his letter dated 22/12/97 addressed to Senior Manager Mr.Mohan Murli informed that repairs effected by O.P.no.3 on five dates could not remove the defects and requested O.P.no.3 to refund the amount of the said Projector. O.P.no.3 by letter dated 19/12/98 advised the complainant to avail the services of O.P.no.2. O.P.no.3 vide its letter dated 23/2/98 informed the complainant that complainant had failed to take necessary precautions and preventive measures for curtailing the problems of dust infestation, fluctuating voltage. However, finally the defects in the said Projector could not be removed by the O.Ps. Due to the non -functioning of the project, complainant suffered loss, could not repay the loan to Janseva Sahakari Bank. Therefore, complainant sent legal notice dated 22/4/98 for refund of the amount of the said Projector. But there was no reply from the O.Ps. Therefore complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum below alleging deficiency in service and claimed certain reliefs.
(3.) O .P.no.3 on behalf of the opponents filed written statement and contended that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Said Projector is purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose. It contended that the Projector was installed and demonstrated at the complainant s business place on 22/2/97, as per installation report, wherein location of mini theatre is described as 10 ft. x 15 ft. with ventilation but without Air conditioning. After the use of the Projector for 6 months, there was lot of dust accumulation on it. Because of the dust, Projector was not functioning. Non functioning was due to dust accumulation requiring the opponent to use the Projector in dust free environment. This was the advice in writing given to him vide Annexure D dated 3/12/97.
On considering the affidavits and documents placed on record, Forum below was pleased to allow the complaint. We perused the impugned order and memo of appeal, relevant documents placed on record. We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is just and proper.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.