w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Vinayak Engineering Works v/s Girish Shivagi Magar

    Revision Petition No. 3616 of 2011

    Decided On, 12 May 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Priank Adhyaru, Advocate. For the Respondent: Astha Deep, Proxy Counsel.

Judgment Text

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1118 of 2009 – M/s. Vinayak Engineering Works Vs. Girish Shivagi Magar by which, appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent, an unemployed person for the purpose of earning his livelihood purchased Oil Hydraulic Automatic Machine from OP/petitioner for a sum of Rs.5,39,760/-. Complainant from time to time made payment of agreed sale consideration and transportation charges. Three items of machinery were received in damaged condition from transporter. OP installed machine, but alignment of machinery was not done properly and defects in the machine occurred due to defective alignment. There were manufacturing defects in the machine. Complainant got machine inspected from other experts, who opined that defects are not repairable and cost of repairs will be higher than the price of purchase of new machine. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that earlier complaint filed by complainant before Pune District Forum was dismissed on 31.1.2007 whereas present complaint was filed on 3.5.2007 which is barred by limitation. It was further submitted that machine was repaired and there was no manufacturing defect. As complainant was not having expertise to operate the machine, it was not functioning properly. It was further submitted that from time to time machine was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant and there was no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,39,760/- with 7% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as machinery was purchased by complainant for commercial purpose, complaint was not maintainable and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. Perusal of complaint reveals that complainant specifically pleaded in the complaint that he was unemployed educated person and for earning his livelihood he intended to purchase Oil Hydraulic Automatic Machine from OP. Though, OP has denied this fact, but has not placed any evidence on record to substantiate that complainant did not purchase aforesaid machine for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission has at

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

length discussed this aspect and rightly arrived to the conclusion that complaint was maintainable. 6. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.