Date of filing : 21-02-2012
Date of order : 14-07-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.40/2012
Dated this, the 14th day of July 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Faizal Rahiman, S/o.K.U.Aboobacker, : Complainant
Kiliyantharikkal House,
Po.Paravanadukam, Kasaragod Taluk&Dist.
(Adv.Kodoth Unnikrishnan,Kasaragod)
1. Mohammed Sinan.K.S, S/o.K.S.Abdulla, : Opposite parties
Manhampara, Po.Adhur, Kasaragod Taluk
2. Mohammed Sohail, S/o.Ayyoob,
Manhampara, Po.Adhur, Kasaragod Taluk
(Ops 1 & 2 Adv.ManikandanNambiar.K. Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SMT. P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT
The facts in short of the case of the complainant is that he is an unemployed youth decided to start a project under the name and style M/s Future Manufacturing and export in Kasaragod. Opposite parties agreed to supply paper plate machinery for a cost of Rs.3,70,000/- (Paper plate making machine). Complainant purchased the machine on 25-10-2011 with a warranty of 5 years. Opposite parties agreed to supply raw materials for paper plate making. The machine supplied by opposite parties is a second quality one and is not functioning. Opposite parties have not so far supplied the raw materials for the production of paper plates. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, complainant suffered heavy damages. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Adv.Manikandan Nambiar filed vakalath for opposite parties. Opposite parties filed version stating the complainant is not a consumer and he is having several business and the purchase of machine is for commercial purpose. The transaction between the complainant and opposite parties are in the nature of a bailment and only a civil court can go into the details of transaction. Opposite parties are not the manufacturer of the machine mentioned in the complaint. The complainant did not pay the entire purchase price. Still he remains to pay Rs.80,000/- towards the price of fully automatic paper making machine.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel of opposite parties. Ext.B1 is produced in support of his case. The questions raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issue No.1. The opposite party taken a specific contention that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act since the machine is purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant is having several other business also.
In Star Wire India Ltd V. Modtech Maritial Handling Projects Pvt.Ltd (2014 IICPJ Page.22). The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana decided that ‘purchase of machinery meant for production of goods for sale, complainant is not a consumer.’
Here the machinery purchased by the complainant is for making paper plates and it is meant for sale. On the basis of the observation of the apex court in the above case, the machinery is purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed without cost
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1.25-10-2011 Cash Memo for Rs.3,70,000/- issued by Ops to complainant.
A2.Agreement.
A3. 27-12-2011 Copy of lawyer notice.
B1. 14-01-2012 reply notice.
PW1. Faisal Rahiman.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
