NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

(From the Order dated 06.05.2004 in Appeal No. 40 of 2003 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa)

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT

PRONOUNCED ON         : 12.02.2009

        Petitioner who was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa, Margao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short) has filed this Revision Petition against the Order dated 05.06.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji, Goa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) in Appeal No. 40 of 2003 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the Order passed by the District Forum dated 02.06.2003. While upholding the Order, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs.47,196/-, towards full cost of the Optima Binocular, Microscope (hereinafter referred to as ‘OBM’ for short) along with interest @ 18%. The State Commission awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages towards mental torture and professional loss suffered by the complainant/respondent.

        Shortly stated, the facts of the case are: -

        That respondent/complainant purchased an OBM from the petitioner for an amount of Rs.47,196/-. The petitioner dispatched the OBM by courier service. No Service Engineer was sent to install the same. Complainant had to install the OBM himself. Within two months of the installment, the instrument began developing faults. Respondent sent two letters to the petitioner but to no weigh.

        Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner did not file written statement but during the course of argument, it was argued that the respondent was not a consumer as the OBM given to him was being used for commercial purposes. Preliminary objection was rejected. It was held that the respondent was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The District Forum accepted the version of the respondent and allowed the complaint. Aggrieved against this, petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Commission, which had been dismissed by the impugned Order.

        Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the petitioner filed Revision Petition. This Commission admitted the Revision Petition on 31.08.2004 only on two points. Firstly, on the point of rate of interest which was awarded @ 18% and, secondly, on the point of professional loss.

        Aggrieved against the limited notice issued by this Commission, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24472 of 2004, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 10.12.2004 by passing the following Order: -

“Counsel for the petitioner today again raised the point that the respondent was not a consumer as the microscope was being utilized by the respondent for his professional work which was a commercial venture. We pointed out to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this point cannot be raised in view of the limited notice dated 31.08.2004.”

        Supreme Court of India, in the above Order, has observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise this point before the appropriate Forum after the Revision Petition is decided, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the Order passed by this Commission. Supreme Court has not enlarged the scope of the Revision Petition. Therefore, we will confine ourselves to the two points on which the notice was issued.

We are not deciding the issue as to whether the respondent is a consumer, as on this point, notice was not issued. Notice was issued only on two points noticed above.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest awarded @ 18% is on the higher side and, accordingly, we reduce the rate of interest to 12%.

The Counsel for the petitioner then contended that the District Forum and the State Commission could not award compensation for the professional loss as the respondent had already been compensated by payment of interest. Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded towards the mental torture and the professional loss. We delete the word ‘professional loss’ and hold that the petitioner would be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the respondent.

        The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

                                                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                (ASHOK BHAN J.)

                                                                . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .