Judgment:
A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:
1. The opposite party in CD 117/94, District Forum, Karimnagar i.e. Swasthik Engineer, Trissur preferred this appeal questioning the order of the District Forum, whereby it directed the opposite party, (1) to replace the defective goods with new goods of similar description free from defects on the complainant paying Rs. 57,500 /- or refund to the second complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 12.5.93, Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 4.6.93, Rs.10,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 15.10.1993 and Rs.10.000/-with interest at 18% p.a. from 4.1.94 till the date of payment, (2) topayRs.25,000/- towards compensation to the second complainant, and (3) to pay costs of Rs. 500/-.
2. The above complaint was filed by Jagtial Consumer Welfare Council, Jagtial represented by its Secretary and Jagtial Tyres represented by George E. Jocob against the Swasthik Engineering.
3. The case of the complainants was that the second complainant placed an order on 9.11.92 with the opposite party for supply of tyre re-treading machine mentioned as items 1 to 6, at a price of Rs. 2,55,000/-. According to the complainant, initially an advance of Rs. 40,000/- was paid on 12.5.93 and the balance was agreed to be paid in instalments and that after taking into account the instalments paid, an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was due. But the opposite party sent a bill for Rs. 1,57,500/- instead of Rs. 2,22,500/- Therefore the opposite party adopted an unfair trade practice and disruptive method.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that the truck size bonder is not working properly due to the lid not sitting properly and the lifter was not working at the time of lifting of tyres and that there is under buffing in the buffing machine and the bed is very hard and is not in a position to move freely at the time of working. The complainant No. 2 wrote letters on 24.11.93 and 4.1.94 to the opposite party. But the opposite party deputed one Mr. A.K. Ravindran a machanic on 23.12.93. But he could not rectify the defect. It is the case of the complainant that instead of rectifying the defects, the opposite party is insisting upon the payment of Rs. 80,000/-. Due to the negligence of the opposite party in supplying all defective machines, the complainant suffered loss. He, therefore, claimed replacement of the machinery with new machinery or refund of Rs. 1,42,500/- towards the cost of the machinery, interest thereon at 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and costs.
5. The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the order was sued at Trissur and the machinarey was supplied at Trissur and therefore the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as the machinery was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer.
It was also pleaded that the second complainant purchased the machinery worth Rs. 1,57,500/- as per the bill dated 14.6.93. But paid only Rs. 40,000/- as advance and issued two cheques for Rs. 10,000/- each. Out of these two cheques, one cheque was dishonoured. The second complainant issued another cheque for Rs. 80,000/-, but it was returned unpaid. According to the opposite party the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 17,000/- and that they never sent any representative for repairs and the machine is not defective as alleged by the complainant and that the complainant paid only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in all and is bound to pay Rs. 97,500/-. With a view to avoid payment, he came forward with this complaint.
6. The District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer since he purchased goods with a view to eke-out his livelihood by means of self-employment and that as the machinery has to be erected at jagtial, the Consumer Forum at Karimnagar has to entertain the complaint and hence part of cause of action arose at jagtial and therefore the District Forum at Karimnagar has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further held that inspite of various representations made by the complainants, the opposite party has not cared to verify that there is any defect in the machinery supplied or to rectify the same and that therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount etc. It further held that the second complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and as the bill dated 14.6.93 shows the cost of machinery as Rs. 1,57,500/-, the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 57,500/-. As the opposite party is not prepared to replace the defective goods with a new one, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 1 lakh with interest and also compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party.
8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer and the District Forum at Karimnagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. We are not inclined to accept this contention. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased the machinery to eke- out his livelihood by means of self-employment. Although the complainant might have employed some workers, but as the machinery was purchased only to eke-out his livelihood by means of self-employment, it cannot be said that the complainant is not a consumer. Since the machinery has to be erected at Jagtial as the unit is located there, the District Forum rightly held that part of cause of action arose at Karimnagar within its territorial jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not see any force in the aforesaid contention.
9. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant paid only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and that it does not know anything about the demand draft dated 4.6.93 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- issued in favour of Smt. Sunitha. But the District Forum on a consideration of the evidence, came to the con- clusion that the opposite party was represented by N.M. Sahajan. The very circumstance that the complainant who is residing at Jagtial took a demand draft in favour of Sunitha Sahajan shows that it must have been done at the instance of the opposite party. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the complainant has no business transactions with Sunitha Sahajan, we are satisfied that the District Forum rightly inferred that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid by means of draft in the name of Sunitha Sahajan at the instance of the opposite party. If that 40,000/- rupees is taken into consideration then the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The District Forum therefore rightly held that the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and directed refund of the same as the machinery was found to be defective and the opposite party did not effect any repairs inspite of various letters addressed by the complainants.
10. Having regard to the circumstances that the complainant started his industry with a view to eke-out his livelihood, the District Forum rightly awarded to the complainant compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is in any way excessive or unreasonable.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shal1 be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.