AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition ( RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents, as detailed above, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 27.04.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal ( FA) No.1811 of 2011 in which order dated 03.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar ( hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 355 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2015 of the State Commission.
2 The Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 09 days (as per Registry, the delay is of 10 days). The delay is condoned after considering the reasons stated in the application and hearing the parties.
Petitioner has challenged the said order dated 27.04.2015 of the State Commission inter alia on the following grounds :
a. The liability of the Petitioner was only upto stage of supplying the DG sets and not for installation as per terms and conditions as stated in the invoice of respondent no.4.
b. Agent is not be liable for any defects.
c. The dealer cannot be held responsible when it is not proved that the defects developed due to something done or not done by the dealer. Dealer is an independent person and not the agent of the Petitioner.
d. Respondent no.4 who is the manufacturer of DG set had not been heard by District Forum or by State Commission. Respondent no.4 is the main contesting party and not the Petitioner.
The District Forum has made both OP No.1 and OP No.2 ( respondent no.4 and Petitioner herein) liable jointly and severally. The State Commission has dismissed the Appeal of OP No.2. The main contention of OP No.2 is that he is merely an agent of OP No.1 and liability if any, should be fastened to OP No.1 only. OP No.2 being agent of OP No.1 is not denied by OP No.2. Counsel for R-1 to 3 have drawn our attention to the invoice dated 02.08.2008, which clearly states that two DG sets with all standard accessories have been sold by OP No.1 to respondent no.1. They have further drawn our attention to offer letter with detailed terms and conditions from OP No.1, as per which, for installation, OP No.1 will be deputing their service engineer for imparting installation guidelines. The Commissioning of DG sets shall be free of cost basis after purchaser has successfully installed as per the guidelines. This shows that only imparting guidelines were the responsibility of the manufacturer ( OP No.1) and installation was supposed to be done by the purchaser i.e. respondent no.1 and, thereafter, commissioning of DG sets was to be done free of cost by OP No.1. To counter this, counsel for the respondents have drawn our attention to the reply filed by OP No.2 before the District Forum wherein OP No.2 has admitted that OPs agreed to install D.G. sets at the premises of the complainant. It is further stated in this reply that set was damaged due to falling of the same from the considerable height because the iron chain of crane was broken while it had been lifted by crane for installation of the same.
The main point to which counsel for R-1 to R-3 have drawn our attention is the offer letter, which he calls Proforma Invoice, containing terms and conditions, which is signed by OP No.2 i.e. the Petitioner herein Mr. Pavan Seigell, clearly stating himself as authorized signatory of Diesel Power International viz. OP No.1 ( Respondent no.4 herein).
We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum and State Commission. They have given a well reasoned order. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the preceding paras, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.