M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainants in COP Nos.115 & 116/1999 are the appellants.
(2.) 3rd respondent in both the appeals is the manufacturer of Nandhi Rice Mill, and respondents 1 and 2 being the partners of Redan Marketing Associates, are the agents of the 3rd respondent. At the instance of respondents 1 and 2, as well as seeing the advertisements given by the respondents 1 and 2, the complainants have purchased Ricemill machinery for Rs.1,85,300/- and Rs.1,08,780/- respectively, different model. From the date of installation of the Rice mill machines, they were not working properly. Despite reports, complaints to the respondents, they failed to attend the repairs and the repairs were due to manufacturing defect. Even after the issue of notice, the respondents failed to make necessary repairs and failed to perform due service, resulting deficiency in service. On the above basis, both the complainants have independently approached the lower forum, for reliefs as claimed in their respective complaints.
(3.) The claim of the petitioners were opposed by the respondents 1 and 2, contending that they are not the partners of Redan Marketing Associates, that they and the 2nd respondent being the agent of the 3rd respondent, introduced the 3rd respondent and the complainants have purchased the machineries from 3rd respondent, paying the amount directly, as out rate sale, that there was no warranty, that when some defects were reported, the 3rd respondent attempted to repair, for which there was no cooperation, that the complainants are not the consumers and that provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable, and therefore the petitions are not maintainable.;