TATA ENGINEERING LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. vs ROSHNI DAHIYA

M/s. Tate Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Company''). Delhi has come up in the appeal against the order dated 14.7.95, passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by Mrs Roshni Dahiya, claiming Rs. 41,000/- as repair charges of the truck, sold by the company, has been allowed and the appellant-Company has been directed to make payment of sum of Rs. 41,000/- to the complainant.

ACCORDING to the complainant, she had purchased a truck bearing No. HR-38/4039,from the appellant-Company with a warranty to repair the truck free of cost within warranty period of 18 months. As Rear Axle tube become defective, the truck was taken to the complainant''s workshop, but they refused to replace the same. As she had to get the tube changed from else where, by spending Rs. 41,000 / -, she had filed this complaint before the District Consumer Forum, for the reimbursement of the aforesaid amount. In its reply, the appellant-Company pleaded that firstly the complainant had purchased the truck for commercial purpose and not for her personal use or as self-employment; as such the complaint was not maintainable. Secondly, since, the complainant had herself got the chassis of the truck built up as a tanker for tipper, she had violated the terms and conditions of the warranty by effecting un-authorised modi-fications. It was on that basis the Company had refused to undertaken free repairs.

After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Consumer Forum, came to the conclusion that, no doubt the complainant had pleaded that for the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Company, she had suffered a loss of Rs. 1,000/- per day during the period for which the truck remained out of order, yet it could not be concluded that the purpose of purchase of truck and plying the same was a commercial one. Therefore, the complaint was held as maintainable. Second ground taken was, that the company being bound by the warranty clause, was liable to reimburse to the complainant.

IN the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the appellant-Company has vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the District Forum and has strongly challanged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the truck had been purchased for the com mercial purpose. He has taken us through the complaint filed by the complainant, in which there is not even a passing reference about the truck having being purchased for self-employment or earning livelihood. On the other hand, there are clear averments in the complaint that the complainant "resides and works for gain" at Gurgaon and that" the complainant has suffered loss of Rs. 25,000/- in 25 days i.e., Rs. 1000/- per day." After hearing the learned Counsel for the Company and Authorised Representative of the respondent, we are of the considered view that in the absence of any allegation by the complainant, and any evidence, what-so-ever to support that the purchase of the truck in-question was for the purpose of self-employment and earning her livelihood, we have no option, but to allow the appeal by holding, that the complainant is not a consumer; hence her complaint before the District Consumer Forum was not maintainable. Consequently, we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of District Consumer Forum and dismiss the complaint, relegating the complainant to the remedy of Civil Suit. No Costs. Appeal accepted.