August 08,2024
A charitable trust specializing in Ayurvedic medicine purchased two pieces of equipment from a dealer for Rs. 56 lakhs. Despite two installation attempts by the manufacturer’s technical experts, the equipment remained non-functional and was incompatible with the existing HPTLC setup. The trust claimed the equipment was defective and filed a complaint with the Kerala state commission. The state commission partially upheld the complaint, ordering the manufacturer to refund Rs. 56 lakhs with 12% annual interest and Rs. 10,000 in costs. Dissatisfied with this decision, the manufacturer appealed to the National Commission.
The dealer and manufacturer contended that the complainant, being a public trust, did not qualify as a “person” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore could not be considered a “consumer” under the Act. This rendered the complaint inadmissible. They also argued that the State Commission did not have the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction to address the complaint. Additionally, they claimed that the warranty conditions were limited to 12 months from the date of installation or 13 months from the date of shipment. Since the equipment was installed by the complainant after the warranty period had expired, they argued that the complainant had no legal grounds to seek damages or compensation, and the dealer was not liable for any deficiencies in service.
The National Commission noted that the complainant in this case, being a charitable trust, does not qualify as a “person” under Section 2(1)(m) of the Act. Therefore, the State Commission’s order was deemed to be outside its jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Pratibha Pratisthan and Ors. vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 712. Consequently, the National Commission overturned the State Commission’s decision and allowed the appeal. However, the complainant was permitted to seek redress through the appropriate legal forum.
Source: The Law Suits