Punjab

Sangrur

CC/838/2015

Gupta Agri Care Pvt Ltd, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Elico Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

shri yogash gupta

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

ISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  838

                                                Instituted on:    17.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.06.2016

 

Gupta Agri. Care Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised signatory Shri Ved Gupta, B-12-13-14, Industrial Area, Focal Point, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                               

                                        Versus

 

Elico Ltd. through its Managing Director, HIA-ARA Centre-2, Jhandewala Extension, New Delhi-110 055 (India).

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

For OP                     :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Gupta Agri. Care Pvt. Ltd. through its authorised signatory Shri Ved Gupta,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an order for supply of atomic absorption spectro photo meter FGSC 168 of HC lamps with the OP and the OP supplied the machine on 30.8.2012 vide invoice number 2576 for Rs.3,09,845/-. It is further averred that as per understanding the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in advance and balance of Rs.59,845/- was to be paid on completion of demonstration and satisfactory results. The case of the complainant is that the representative of the OP visited number of times to the complainant, but he failed to give demonstration of the machine in question. The complainant written so many letters to the Op, but all in vain. The complainant has alleged that he has been deprived from using the machine due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount with the OP till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has filed the false complaint to deny the balance payment of Rs.59,845/- plus Rs.24,000/- on account of visits of engineer on 7.2.2014 and 14.2.2015 along with interest, that the complainant does not fall in the category of consumer, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable.  In additional objection, it is admitted that the complainant placed an order on 6.3.2012 with the OP for supply of the atomic absorption spectrophotometer model SL-168 for Rs.3,05,000/- and the complainant placed the order after getting free demonstrations for operation and running of the machine. It is admitted that the complainant paid an amount ofRs.2,50,000/- to the OP. It is stated that the product in question was delivered to the complainant on 30.8.2012, but the complainant was not ready to get the machine in question installed and made request for installation of the machine later on.  Thereafter the engineer of the Op visited on 13.2.2013 and installed the machine in question. The engineer of the OP again visited the complainant on 27.2.2013 with material and installed the machine in question and made operational.  It is stated that thereafter the engineer of the OP visited the complainant on 10.7.2013, 23.7.2013 and 26.7.2013 and the machine was working properly. It is stated further that the requisite material, chemical and their competent staff and chemist were required for proper and smooth functioning of the machine, but every time the complainant was short of proper material and frequent change and non availability of chemist and other employee and due to this there was mishandling and negligence on the part of the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 17.7.2015, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 15.6.2015, Ex.C-6 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-7 copy of certificate of installation, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 copies to service reports, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 copy of invoice and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Op has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.Op/2 copy of email, Ex.OP/3 copy of purchase order, Ex.Op/4 copy of invoice, Ex.OP/5 copy of demo/service report, Ex.OP-6 copy of demo report, Ex.OP-7 copy of shipment status, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-10 copies of demo report, Ex.OP-11 copy of certificate of installation, Ex.OP-12 copy of letter, Ex.OP-13 copy of letter, Ex.OP-14 copy of email, Ex.OP-15 copy of demo report, Ex.OP-16 copy of tour report, Ex.OP-17 copy of email dated 26.12.2014, Ex.OP-18 copy of email, Ex.OP-19 copy of letter, Ex.OP-20 copy of email, Ex.OP-21 copy of email and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had purchased the machine in question on 30.8.2012 for Rs.3,09,845/- from the OP, against which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and still an amount of Rs.59,845/- remains due against the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OP failed to give proper demonstration of the machine in question, as such has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- paid by him to the OP.  On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the  machine in question has already been supplied on 30.8.2012, but at that time the complainant was not ready to get the machine in question installed in his factory premises and made request for installation of the same later on, as such, the Op  installed the machine on 13.2.2013 and thereafter on 27.2.2013 the machine was made operational. It is further averred that the machine in question was working properly as the engineer of the Op visited the complainant thrice i.e. on 10.7.2013, 23.7.2013 and 26.7.2013 and any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied. It is further contended that the complainant has filed the false complaint only to withheld the remaining amount of Rs.59,845/- payable to the OP.

 

 

6.             Further the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the complaint of the complainant should be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is a private limited firm which is running under the name and style of ‘Gupta Agri Care Pvt. Ltd. Sangrur’ , which is being run by employing various persons, labours etc. and as such the firm is running by the complainant in order to earn huge profits on commercial basis and thus it does not come under the definition of consumer.   To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the Op has cited Birla Technologies Limited versus Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited 2011(1) SCC 525 (Supreme Court), it has been held that where the goods have been purchased for commercial purpose, the complaint of the complainant filed by him in 2003 after 2002 is not maintainable and the complainant was given liberty to file suit for the relief claimed taking benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further the learned counsel for the Ops has cited Max Infra (India) Limited versus Ashok Leyland Limited and others 2014(2) CPR 691 (NC), held that where the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer, however, with liberty to the complainant to approach proper Forum/Civil Court for redressal of its grievance.   As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant is involved in the commercial activities as he is running the private limited firm as mentioned above. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that he is running the industry at his own in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. In the circumstances, it is proved on record that the complainant is running the industry in order to earn huge profits by employing various employees/labours etc.  as such, we find that the case of the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as mentioned under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

7.             So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above and in view of the legal position explained above, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy before the civil court, if he so desired. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 6, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member