2009 (8) TMI 1140 - SC - Indian Laws

Court recognizes appellant as 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, enhances compensation, directs payment of costs.

Madan Kumar Singh (D) Thr. LR. Versus Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur & Ors

The court allowed the appellant's appeal, recognizing him as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and confirming the deficiency in ... Whether the appellant can be said to be 'consumer' within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether it can be said that there has been deficiency in the services committed by respondents as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act? Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant qualifies as a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. Whether there was a deficiency in services by the respondents as per Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.3. Determination of appropriate compensation for the appellant.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Consumer Definition:The court examined whether the appellant falls within the definition of a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant purchased a truck through an auction for a consideration, intending to use it for earning his livelihood through self-employment. The court noted that the definition of 'consumer' excludes those who obtain goods for resale or commercial purposes but includes those who use goods for earning a livelihood through self-employment. The court concluded that the appellant qualifies as a 'consumer' because he intended to use the truck exclusively for self-employment, thus satisfying the criteria under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.2. Deficiency in Services:The court analyzed whether the respondents committed a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The appellant faced significant delays in receiving both the truck and the necessary documents, which impeded his ability to use the truck for the intended commercial purpose. The truck was delivered six months after the auction, and the documents were handed over only after more than five years. The court found that this delay constituted a clear deficiency in service, as the respondents failed to perform their obligations in a timely manner, causing substantial inconvenience and financial loss to the appellant.3. Compensation:The court considered the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was Rs. 25,000 along with Rs. 5,000 as costs. The appellant had claimed higher damages, including Rs. 500 per day for loss of earnings and additional amounts for mental and social injuries. The court acknowledged the appellant's financial losses due to the delayed delivery and depreciation of the truck's value. It found the awarded amount too meager and decided to enhance the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000, payable by the respondents jointly or severally. Additionally, the court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the original application until the actual payment of the enhanced amount.Conclusion:The court allowed the appellant's appeal, recognizing him as a 'consumer' and confirming the deficiency in service by the respondents. The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 with interest, and the respondents were directed to pay the costs. The appeal by the respondents was dismissed with costs, and counsel fees were assessed at Rs. 10,000 each.