LAWS(NCD)-2017-1-43

DNYANDEO PATIBA BHOSALE KHADKI KHANDALA AHMEDNAGAR MAHARASHTRA Vs. TEREX EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. AND 3 ORS. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER AMIT S/O. BHASKAR DEVKAR SERVICE WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY OFFICE AT 108

Decided On January 12, 2017
Dnyandeo Patiba Bhosale Khadki Khandala Ahmednagar Maharashtra Appellant
V/S
Terex Equipments Pvt. Ltd. And 3 Ors. Through Its Authorised Officer Amit S/O. Bhaskar Devkar Service With The Appellant Company Office At 108 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision takes exception to order of the State Commission Maharashtra dated 04.12.2015 in First Appeal No.A/14/383 vide which the State Commission quashed the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner complainant Dnyandeo Patiba Bhosale filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that he is a farmer involved in agriculture work on a big land belonging to his joint family. It is the case of the complainant that he was in need of Terex machine for the development and cultivation of agriculture land. The complainant thus contacted opposite no.4 Dixons Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., who convinced the complainant that Terex machine manufactured by opposite party no.1 would be suitable for the complainant as its engine was manufactured by opposite party no.3 M/s Kirloskar Oil Engineering Ltd which consumed less diesel than the Terex machine manufactured by other manufacturers. Being convinced by the representation made by opposite party no.2, the complainant approached the manager of opposite party no.1 and received quotation. The complainant purchased Terex machine Terex machine by making total payment of Rs.18,50,000.00. The machine, however, was defective and on the very next day, its lock cable broke. The complainant intimated the opposite parties about the said damage. It is further the case of the complainant that even the representation of the opposite parties regarding lesser consumption of diesel was wrong. On user the Terex machine was found consuming much more diesel than the promised consumption of 4-5 litres of diesel. It is alleged that Terex machine gave persistent trouble and it was taken for repairs on many occasions resulting in financial loss as also mental harassment to the complainant. The complainant thus raised consumer dispute in the District Forum concerned seeking replacement of Terex machine or in the alternative refund of price of machine with interest besides compensation.

(3.) The respondents on being served with the notice of the complaint filed written statement denying the allegations made in the complaint. Op No.3 took a specific plea that complainant had purchased the machine for commercial purpose, as such, he could not be termed as 'consumer' and consumer complaint was not maintainable on that count alone.