DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1325 of 2018

                                             Date of institution:  18.12.2018                                             Date of order   :       19.12.2018

Manish son of Bhushan Pal, resident of House No.56, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     JCB India Private Limited through its Managing Director, 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Haryana 121004.

2.     Krishna Automobiles, Authorised Dealer, JCB India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Plot No.3, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Estate, Mohali (Pb.) 160055.

……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Dushyant Sarvesh, counsel for complainant.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                 Complainant, owner of JCB Machine bearing Registration No.HR-68 B 3118 visited authorised dealer for sales and service parts for repair of engine of the machine. OP No.2 is authorised dealer and OP No.1 is manufacturer of said JCB Machine. Machine was fully covered by warranty issued by OP No.1. OP No.2 refused to repair the same by raising technical objection and as such complainant was forced to spend Rs.25,000/- for carrying on repairs. Even after these extensive repairs got done on 16.04.2018, condition of the machine worsened and it became difficult for complainant to use the same for business routine. When OP No.2 again contacted, then no satisfactory reply was received. Ultimately machine stopped functioning on 21.09.2018. Though all the spare parts of the machine were under warranty, but repair of same not done by OPs and that is why complainant had to spend Rs.60,000/-more on 25.09.2018. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, this complaint filed for seeking refund of Rs.90,000/-, the amount spent for repair of the machine alongwith interest. Compensation for mental harassment and agony etc. alongwith litigation expenses also claimed.

2.             Arguments for admission purposes heard.

3.             From perusal of Para No.6 of the complaint alongwith corresponding para of the affidavit and of the served legal notice Ex.C-3, it is made out that use of JCB machine in question was for purpose of business routine. So certainly the machine purchased by complainant from OPs was for business purposes. There is no allegation or averment in the complaint that this business carried on for purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. Being so, complainant is not consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act because of commercial nature of transaction in question.

4.             In case, the lift was got installed for commercial purpose, then Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint is the proposition of law laid down in case of Nikita Cares Vs. Surya Palace IV (2015) CPJ 405 (N.C.)   As per law laid down in case titled as R.K. Handicraft and others Vs. Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others II (2015) CPJ 13 (N.C.) when a generator set purchased for generating electricity to run a factory for manufacturing of handloom products, then the complainant concerned is not a consumer. Likewise, if computer software is purchased by a private limited company without pleading that same used by the Managing Director for running business for earning livelihood or self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per law laid down in case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd. I (2014) CPJ 332 (N.C.). Even in case of Manu Talwar Vs. DPT Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 396 (N.C.) it has been held that when breach of buyer agreement qua purchase of commercial space takes place, then complainant concerned is not a consumer.  Ratio of these cases fully applicable to the facts of the present case. As complainant is not shown to be consumer of OPs and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed at admission stage.

5.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed. Certified copy of the order, free of cost be supplied to the complainants and thereafter the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.           

Announced

December 19, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member