- (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the order dated 29.7.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in Consumer Complaint No. 27/ 2007, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,36,000 after taking back the Oven, Spiral Mixer and Slicer.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Shri Anand Bahuguna purchased an oven along with its auxiliary machinery from M/s. Pritul Machinery, near Jain Inter College, Prempuri, Muzaffarnagar and M/s. Triloper Machine, Engineers and Fabricators, K -5, Industrial Area, Beerajpur, Muzaffarnagar - opposite parties on 27.10.2005 for Rs. 6,30,000 for bakery business. Within a month after starting the bakery work, the complainant alleged that the burners of the oven stopped working and its fans also became defective. Though, on making a complaint, the opposite parties repaired the oven, but the oven failed to bake the goods perfectly. Besides the defective oven, the spiral mixer supplied by the opposite parties had a capacity of less than 30 kg instead of 45 kg as claimed by the opposite parties. The complainant has also alleged that the opposite parties had supplied the slicer and biscuit machine at a much higher price than the market price of these items. The complainant tried initially to get the oven and allied machinery exchanged with a new one, but in spite of assurances, the opposite parties did not supply the new machine. When the opposite parties did not reply to the notice sent by the complainant through his Counsel, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, vide its order dated 29.7.2009, partly allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties and the complainant both have filed these two appeals. The complainant has filed a First Appeal No. 154/2009 challenging theorder impugned on the ground that the amount awarded by the District Forum is inadequate. The First Appeal No. 156/2009 has been filed by the opposite parties challenging the impugned order on the ground that the oven does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants in First Appeal No. 156/2009 (Respondents in First Appeal No. 154/2009) vehemently argued that the respondent - complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the oven and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant has never lodged any complaint with regard to any manufacturing defect in the oven. The first complaint with regard to heating problem in the oven was lodged on 24.1.2006, which was removed by the service engineer and thereafter the oven worked satisfactorily. The appellants always provided timely and best service, whenever they received a complaint and the complainant himself has rated the service as "Best". Thus, the appellants have made no deficiency in service. The learned Counsel further submitted that the complainant was using the said oven for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The learned Counsel also submitted that the appellants have come to know that the complainant has sold the entire machine to someone else. The learned Counsel said that the complainant's real problem is not with oven supplied by the appellants, but the fact is that the complainant, after purchasing the said oven, felt that he had purchased a smaller oven (1025 model) and after using it for 10 months, the respondent -complainant asked the appellants that he wanted an oven with better output than the said one. The appellants suggested the respondent -complainant to upgrade it with model No. 1350 under the buy back system. Under the buy back system, after adjusting the depreciated cost of the old oven, the complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 3,75,000 for the higher model. But the complainant neither returned the old oven nor paid the amount of Rs. 3,75,000 for the higher model and, instead, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, making false and frivolous allegations against the appellants. The District Forum, without appreciating these facts, has, committed material irregularity and illegality while allowing the consumer complaint and passing the impugned order. Since both the appeals arise out of same judgment and order, these are being disposed of by a common order.;