MOTIBHUSAN MISHRA vs BASANTLAL VERMA

THE facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the present petitioner Mr. Motibhusan Mishra has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh alleging that he had purchased one H.M.T. Arvindo make wrist watch from the present respondent (who was Opp. Party before the State Commission) for Rs. 569.02. We need not dilate much on the point of the watch purchased by the petitioner. Suffice it to say that it did not function properly and he took the watch to the respondent a couple of times for removal of the defects. However, on the last occasion, the respondent refused to exchange the watch for a new one as the guarantee period had expired by that time. During the course of his running to the respondent''s show room at Sundargarh, trusting the reputation of the H.M.T. Company, the appellant had carried with him a Quartz lady wrist watch of his wife as per her request and entrusted the same to the respondent for adjustment of its late running. THE respondent returned the said watch on 31.10.1988 on payment of Rs. 90/- towards repairing charges. A guarantee card for 6 months was also issued by the respondent. However, the watch stopped running within a week of the repairs. THE petitioner again brought his wife''s watch to the respondent and complained about the failure in repair. THE respondent then took the watch for proper repairs. THE Respondent could not detect the defect. He sent the watch piece to the company branch at Bhubaneshwar. Again he gave out that the defect could not be found out at Bhubaneshwar and so it has been finally sent to the original H.M.T. company at Bangalore. When the petitioner again went to the show-room of the respondent, he failed to trace the watch. On the above allegations, the complainant filed a complaint before the above Forum claiming price of the two watches plus compensation for his various journies from Sundargarh to Rourkela (the distance between these two places being 110 kms.) and mental agony etc.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint in respect of both the watches and awarded Rs. 1,010/- towards the cost of the wrist watches, Rs. 250/- towards repairing charges, Rs. 800/- towards expenses incurred by the petitioner on his journeys. THE complainant was also allowed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. The present respondent filed on appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack. It has disallowed the claim of the consumer complainant with reference to the watch of his wife. It remarked as follows: "Complainant is only a bearer of the watch of his wife. He is neither the purchaser nor he uses the watch with the approval of his wife. Accordingly, he is not a consumer in respect of the watch of his wife. A husband is not a person authorised on behalf of the consumer wife to file complaint under Section 12. Hence, he is not entitled to any relief therefor."

Consequently, the appeal of the respondent was partly accepted, The claimant was allwoed Rs. 569.02 paise towards the cost of his watch purchased from the respondent plus Rs. 250/- as compensation for deficiency in repairs. He was also allowed Rs. 1,500/- as damages for the expenses incurred by him on his journeys for physical and mental pain, i.e., a total of Rs. 2,319.02 paise.

The claimant is aggrieved of the order of the State Commission and has filed the present Revision Petition.

NONE of the parties or their Counsel appeared before us when the case was called for hearing. We have gone through the records of the case. We are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission, so far it relates to the watch of the claimant''s wife cannot be sustained. It was the claimant who had purchased the watch of his wife for repairs and entrusted it for repair to the respondent. Thus it was the claimant petitioner who had hired the services of the respondent for repairing the watch of his wife. By losing the said watch, the respondent was definitely negligent in the rendering of service. It is immaterial to whom that watch belonged or whether the claimant was authorised to use it or not.

WE also wish to draw attention to an observation in Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shetty (First Appeal No. 7 of 1991): "In Indian conditions women may be illiterate and un-educated women may be unaware of their legal rights. To insist that the husband, cannot file & prosecute complaints under the Act on behalf of their spouses will deprive millions of such aggrieved persons of the benefits of this (C.P.A.) legislation".

The claimant has claimed Rs. 1,010/- as the price of both the watches of which the cost of his own watch was Rs. 569.02 paise. The price of his wife''s watch comes to Rs. 540.98 paise. The claimant is entitled to claim these amounts from the respondent as the latter has lost it. For the foregoing reasons, we modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that in addition to Rs. 2,319.02 paise the respondent will be liable to pay Rs. 540.98 paise. Its order about the payment of interest is maintained. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of