ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 716 of 2003, wherein the petitioner in Revision Petition No. 2206/2006, namely, Santosh Drillers, had filed a complaint against three opposite parties, namely, Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., Hindustan Power Plus Limited and TIL Limited alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
2. Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint by the complainant Santosh Drillers, were that the complainant had purchased a compressor with caterpillar 3406 DITA engine along with necessary parts for a consideration of Rs. 14 lakh. The caterpillar was supplied on 31.1.1997 by Hindustan Power Plus Limited. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. is acting agent of Hindustan Power Plus Limited. The rationale for filing the complaint was, that the engine of the machine was found not working properly, allegedly having inherent manufacturing defect in the compressor as well as in the later engine. Admittedly, complaints were attended to by the opposite party’s agent but when the machine was not functioning properly despite the complainant having been made to spend Rs. 1 lakh for repairs within the warranty period, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint with a direction to the complainant to file civil suit in accordance with the law if he so advised. The District Forum dismissed the complaint based on the premise that the complainant Santosh Drillers is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition as given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the machine had been purchased for commercial purpose.
3. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. and Hindustan Power Plus Limited to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1 lakh, the amount which he had spent on getting the repairs made within the warranty period, along with cost of Rs. 1,000. It is against this order that two separate revision petitions—one (R.P. No. 2206/2006) by the complainant, Santosh Drillers for enhancement of the compensation and another (R.P. No. 1173/2006) by the manufacturer of the caterpillar, namely, Hindustan Power Plus Limited, has been filed before us.
Revision Petition No. 1773/2006
4. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Basic facts are not in dispute that the said stated caterpillar was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 14 lakh out of which Rs. 12 lakh was obtained as loan from State Financial Corporation. Admittedly, it carried a warranty of 5000 hours of working and/or 24 months. Admittedly, complaints with regard to compressor as well as caterpiller were being made within the warranty period, in view of which State Commission acted in accordance with the law when it allowed the complaint to be dealt in by Consumer Forum for the simple reason that even if had the machine been purchased for commercial purposes yet if the defects are noticed within the warranty period then the complainant/consumer can file a complaint before a Consumer Forum in the capacity of a ‘consumer’.
5. Before us along with the written submissions the ‘job-cards’ have been filed but the most crucial document has not been filed by the Hindustan Power Plus Limited with regard to Rs. 1 lakh spent by the complainant Santosh Driller on getting the repairs made during the warranty period. It is not in doubt that when the complaints were made to Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. about the defects, i.e., the dealer of Hindustan Power Plus Limited from whom the machine was purchased, the former directed the complainant to approach the Hindustan Power Plus Limited, i.e., the manufacturer, who are based in Bangalore and who in turn directed the complainant to approach the TIL limited in Ghaziabad. It is from there that machine was got repaired for which the complainant had to pay Rs. 1 lakh to get the machine repaired within the warranty period. It is important to note that despite service none appeared on behalf of the TIL limited, Ghaziabad before the District Forum. Before us also all the material has been filed, but not a word has been stated as to the repairs carried out by the TIL Limited to whom the complainant was referred to by the Hindustan Power Plus Limited as to what were the parts replaced and whether fell within the terms of the warranty or otherwise? There is not an iota of evidence to this effect one way or the other, either in the written submissions filed by the petitioner Hindustan Power Plus Limited nor any document produced, hence in our view, this allegation of the complainant remains un-rebutted that he had to spend Rs. 1 lakh for getting the repairs carried out within the warranty period and there is no disputing the fact that when the caterpillar was repaired, it was within the warranty period.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, if State Commission has granted compensation of Rs. 1 lakh against Hindustan Power Plus Limited and Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., no illegality has been committed by it as this is as per material on record.
Revision Petition No. 2206 of 2006
7. As far as the Revision Petition (R.P. No. 2206 /2006) filed by Santosh Driller is concerned, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties and found that as per law what they were entitled to is refund of the amounts spent by them for getting the repairs carried out and this has been awarded by the State Commission. In view of above, according to us, nothing more is required to be granted to the petitioner/ complainant.
8. In view of above we find no merit in both the revision petitions, hence both the revision petitions are dismissed.