A. Suresh Babu vs Gujavarthi Ramachander Reddy

IN the present case, the petition has been filed by the OP company and the respondent herein is the original complainant.

THE complainant installed a rice mill in the year 2001. Every year it had to purchase one lakh quintals of paddy and convert it into rice and sell the rice to the Food Corporation of India and in the open market. Attracted by the advertisement of the OP, the complainant placed an order on 17.8.2004 for supplying a weigh bridge of 5 tons capacity for Rs.4,10,000/- and paid 25% of the quoted price i.e., Rs.1,01,750/- on 17.8.2004. On 5.11.2004, OP delivered the weigh bridge and its engineer fixed the same on 23.11.2004 after which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2 lakh. Installation of the weigh bridge was completed on 23.11.2004 and the invoice was handed over on the same day. Having found the weigh bridge to be defective, defects were brought to the notice of the OP, upon which the OP engineers visited twice and rectified the defects and fitted the weigh bridge with load cells. Balance amount of Rs.1 lakh including the fitting charges were paid thereafter. Contrary to the warranty given by the OP, the weigh bridge was not functioning properly and the plates were broken because of which the complainant suffered losses. Aggrieved by the malfunctioning of the weigh bridge and also the attitude of the OP in attending to the defects, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint seeking directions to the OP for replacement of weigh bridge of 50 HP and for paying Rs.20,000/- or in the alternative to refund the value of the weigh bridge of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest 24% per annum and Rs.20,000/- towards damages.

Op filed its counter denying the averments made in the complaint and submitted that the complainant had filed a false complaint only to evade the payment of balance amount which is due from the complainant to the Op.

ON appraisal of the issues involved and the evidence adduced and after hearing the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 21.12.2005 allowed the complaint directing the OP to replace the defective weigh bridge with a new one or to refund the cost of the weigh bridge of Rs.4,10,000/- after taking back the defective weigh bridge within one month from the date of receipt of the order. It further directed the OP to repay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which was collected towards the cost of the spare parts and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of this complaint. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP preferred an appeal challenging the same before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission for short). The State Commission partly allowed the appeal reducing the amount from Rs.4,10,000/- to Rs.3,75,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. The present revision petition has now been filed by the OP against this impugned order of the State Commission.

WE have heard Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. K. Radha, Advocate for the respondent. We find that in this case both the fora below have returned their concurrent finding of facts while accepting the complaint of the respondent. The only legal issue which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the weigh bridge in question was being used for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a ?consumer? under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order of the State Commission giving relief to the complainant cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To this argument, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that it is a case where the purchase made for consideration has been found to be defective and since the same was not for re-sale but for use by the complainant, the plea of commercial purpose does not hold good. In any case, she argued that the plea of commercial purpose was not taken by the petitioner either before the District Forum or subsequently before the State Commission and hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a new pleading at this stage. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that both the fora below have dealt with the dispute at length in all its related aspects and have returned their concurrent findings in favour of the complainant. Whatever relief was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case has already been given by the State Commission by slightly modifying the order of the District Forum while partly accepting the appeal of the petitioner. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order since the scope of our powers under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is limited to only cases of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which are obviously not present in the instant impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition with the parties bearing their own costs.