Complaints Regarding Goods Bought For Livelihood Cannot Be Dismissed Without Evaluation: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM. J. Rajendra held that complaints about goods bought for livelihood cannot be dismissed without proper examination and that no rigid formula should be applied to determine commercial purpose. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a Poclain (L&T Komatsu) Hydraulic Excavator...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM. J. Rajendra held that complaints about goods bought for livelihood cannot be dismissed without proper examination and that no rigid formula should be applied to determine commercial purpose.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant purchased a Poclain (L&T Komatsu) Hydraulic Excavator for Rs 59,11,000. Shortly after, the machine began experiencing various mechanical issues. Komatsu India/machine company addressed these faults for a fee, with the complainant claiming repairs were needed on multiple occasions, including oil changes, filter replacements, and other mechanical fixes, all of which were paid for by the complainant. Eventually, the excavator ceased functioning, and the machine company diagnosed the problem as a failure of the hydraulic pump and swing motor, providing an estimate of Rs. 9,00,000 for repairs. The complainant requested the return of the hydraulic pump and swing motor, but the machine company did not comply. Following this, the complainant filed a case alleging deficiency in service, which was dismissed by the State Commission of Rajasthan on the grounds that the complainant was not considered a 'consumer' under the relevant law. Consequently, the complainant appealed before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The machine company argued that the State Commission's order was well-reasoned and did not require interference. It noted that the complainant had admitted to using the machine in his family business, which constituted commercial use. The machine company claimed the complainant operated as a stone crusher while extracting stones, indicating he had taken the mine and hired a driver for the excavator. Additionally, it was suggested that the complainant's loan of Rs 1,29,00,000 implied it was for commercial purposes. The machine company asserted it was not liable for any reckless use of the excavator, as specified in the warranty. The machine company referenced Supreme Court judgments in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute and JCB India Ltd. Vs. Nallappa Sangappa Munshi & Ors. to support its position.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the complaint before the State Commission was based on alleged manufacturing defects, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practices. It was clear from the complainant's records that the excavator had to be taken to the machine company's workshop multiple times soon after purchase, which the machine company did not deny. However, no explanation was given for not providing the warranty benefits, despite the complainant's claim that the necessary documentation was not provided. The machine company justified the repairs on a cost basis, but failed to prove that the complainant was not a 'consumer.' The assumption that the excavator was used for commercial purposes was made without evidence, relying solely on its use in the stone mine owned by the complainant's brother. The National Commission noted that the State Commission wrongly applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute(2015) without proof, basing its conclusion on assumptions rather than evidence, despite the complainant's statement that the excavator was acquired for self-employment through a loan. The Commission relied on case laws such as Rohit Choudhary vs. Vipul Limited (2024) and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. M/s Unique Shanti Developers (2020), which highlighted that complaints about goods bought for livelihood should be carefully reviewed, and there shouldn't be a strict rule to decide if they're for 'commercial' purposes.
The commission concluded that the State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint by wrongly determining that the complainant was not a consumer. The test for being a consumer, as established in Laxmi Engineering, was not properly followed.
Therefore,the National Commission allowed the appeal and the State Commission's order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the State Commission for fresh adjudication with proper consideration of the evidence.
Case Title: Kamaljeet Singh Shekhawat Vs. Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 1876/2017