T T PRIVATE LTD Vs. AKHIL BHARTIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.3.93 of the Maharashtra State Commission at Bombay allowing the complaint and directing the appellant herein (opposite party No. 2) to pay Rs. 38,000/ - towards the reimbursement of medical bills and also to replace the defective cooker withanew one and to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ -towards compensation besides Rs. 1,000/ - as costs.

(2.) THE complaint was filed by Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, Hindu Dharma Sankriti Bhavan, Dhantoli, Nagpur and Shri Mangesh Manoher Telrandhe, 53, Central Excise Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur. The case set up in the nutshell is that Shri Mangesh Manohar Telrandhe had purchased a new Pressure Cooker of 5 liters capacity from M/s. Meghna Metals manufactured by M/s. T.T. (Pvt.) Ltd., the Appellant herein on 21.10.86 for Rs. 389/ -. The opposite parties had issued 10 years guarantee for the use of the said cooker and the guarantee card dated 21st October, 1986 issued in favour of the complainant No. 2 is Exhibit No. 2 before the State Commission. Mrs. Meenal Telrandhe wife of the complainant No. 2 was injured on 10.11.89 when the cooker while cooking burst and exploded. In the explosion the part of the cooker which was blown, damaged the right hand of Mrs. Meenal Telrandhe and she suffered several injuries. The complainants alleged that the accident was due to the defective goods and Mrs. Meenal Telrandhe suffered permanent disability. The complainant claimed Rs. 38,000/ - towards expenses for the treatment of Mrs. Meenal Telrandhe and Rs. 5.00 lakhs compensation for the permanent disability suffered by her. It is stated in the order of the State Commission that the opposite parties did not file any written version. However, they were duly represented and heard on the merits of the claim made by the complainant

(3.) WE have the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. The first submission of the learned Counsel is that the husband has no locus standi to litigate on behalf of the wife. In our opinion the relationship of husband and wife, in marriage, is such that of commonality of interest and inter -dependence on each other, entitles either party to step in the shoes of another when the complaint relates to defective goods used both by the husband and wife. The goods were purchased by the husband for use by the family. The wife was using the cooker for cooking and it exploded causing severe injuries to the wife. The husband incurred Rs. 38,000/ - in the treatment of the injured wife and claimed the relief of reimbursement of those expenses besides compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the wife. The husband is certainly a consumer as purchase of defective goods for consideration and is entitled to claim the loss suffered by him in incurring expenditure for the treatment of his wife. The permanent disability suffered by the wife also give a cause of action to the husband. Admittedly the complaint is also filed by Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, registered Consumer Organisation and as per the provisions of Section 2(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, they have locus standi to file the complaint, although it is loosely mentioned that the complaint is on behalf of complainant No. 2.