KIRAN MISHRA vs Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 885 of 2012 - Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Mishra by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner purchased one Ceramco 7.0 furnace 230 vat machine from OP/respondent for a sum of Rs.1,90,000/ - on 2.9.2006. OP gave warranty of two years, but after installation, the machine was giving some problem for which, complainant contacted OP. The OP failed to remove the defects and failed to fulfil their part of agreement. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the said machine and further submitted that if any defect developed in the machine, it was due to negligence on the part of complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to replace the furnace or refund the cost of machine along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.5,000/ - as cost of proceedings. Appeal filed by the respondent/OP was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in holding that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by leaned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that learned State Commission set aside order of District Forum only on the ground that complaint does not fall within the purview of consumer, as machine was to be used for commercial purposes. Paragraph 1 of the complaint reads as under: ''''That the complainant is the proprietor of prince Dental Lab, Yamuna Nagar, where she makes Dental Crown Bridges herself and with the help of other technicians and earns her livelihood ''''.

Reply to this paragraph in the written statement reads as under: ''''That the contents of para No. 1 are personal details of the Complainant and are matter of record, hence need no reply. ''''

Perusal of these pleadings clearly reveals that complainant purchased this machine for earning her livelihood and OP has not disputed this fact in written statement. There was no occasion for learned State Commission to hold that machine was purchased for commercial purposes. Learned State Commission wrongly held that there was nothing on record to prove that the complainant was using the said machine for earning her livelihood because paragraph one of the complaint clearly reveals that complainant was running Dental Lab for earning her livelihood which has not been denied by OP.

IN the light of the above discussion, impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission to decide the appeal on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 885/2012 - Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kiran Mishra is set aside and appeal is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide it on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties treating complainant as consumer. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission, Haryana on 16.1.2014. ... ... ... ... ... ...Sd/ - ... ... ... ... ...