Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon, allowed the complaint of the
respondent and directed the appellants herein to pay Rs.3,07,500/- with nine per cent
interest and cost of Rupees two thousand. The appeal preferred against that order
was dismissed by the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for
short, `the State Commission’], and appellate order has been confirmed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, `the National
Commission]. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the
complainant was not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, `the Act’) and the complaint was barred by
limitation, but without properly appreciating the arguments put forward on behalf of
the appellants, the District Forum and State and National Commissions ruled in
favour of the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent submitted that he was a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2
(1)(d) of the Act, especially in view of the explanation thereto as the machine was
purchased by the complainant exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self-
employment. He further submitted that the complaint was not barred by limitation
and the District Forum did not commit any error by granting relief to the respondent.
A perusal of the record shows that both the parties had filed affidavits
before the District Forum in support of their respective pleadings, but no evidence
was produced on the issues whether the respondent is a “consumer” within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and whether the complaint was within
limitation. In our view, having regard to the nature of controversy raised before it,
the District Forum should have afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence
and as the matter has been decided without taking recourse to that procedure, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order are set aside and the
matter is remitted to the District Forum, Jalgaon, to decide the complaint afresh after
giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. It is needless to say that the
question of limitation shall also be decided afresh by the District Forum.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 16, 2009.