K KOMALAVALLY Vs. TELCO, ZONAL SERVICE OFFICE COCHIN
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Telco, Zonal Service Office Cochin
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) MEMBERTHE above appeal is preferred from the order, dated 11.11.2002 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP No. 569/2002. In fact the complaint was numbered as OP 569/99 and by mistake in the impugned order the year of institution of the complaint No. 569 has been shown as 2002. The correct year of institution is 1999. In effect impugned order has been passed in OP No. 569/99. The said complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 namely the manufacturer and dealer of the vehicle Tata Sumo which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 and 2. The 3rd opposite party was the manufacturer of the tyres of the disputed vehicle Tata Sumo. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version contending that there was no manufacturing . detect and that the complainant Smt. K Komalavally is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. It was also contended that the complainant Smt. K. Komalavally is employed in KSEB and so she cannot be considered as the consumer as defined under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2.) BEFORE the Forumbelow the complainant was examined 'as PW1 and witnesses from the opposite parties 1 and 2 were examined as DWs 1 and 2. An expert Commissioner was also appointed to inspect the disputed vehicle. The expert Commissioner submitted CI commission report. He was examined before the Forum below as CW1. On the side of the complainant Al to A5 documents and that on the side of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Bl. B2 series and B3 documents were marked. The Forum below formulated the following point
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer corning within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act?
(2) Whether there was no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
(3) Reliefs and costs
(3.) THE Forum below considered the 1st point as a preliminary point and it was found that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. So, the other points have not been considered by the Forumbelow.On the basis of the finding on point 1 (preliminary point) the complaint was dismissed. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein.
We heard the Counsel for the appellant / complainant and the respondents 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2). The Counsel for the 3rd respondent (3rd opposite party) was also heard. The learned Counsel for the appellant canvassed for the position that the defects in the vehicle developed during the warranty period and so the complainant who alleged deficiency in service is to be considered as a consumer, even though the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. He also relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble National Commission in East India Construction Co. and Another V/s. Modern Consultancy Services and Others, 2006 2 CPJ 289 . He also relied on C1 Commission report and argued for the position that the defects in the vehicle developed during warranty period. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.