Karnataka

Gadag

CC/34/2016

M/s S.F.Bavinakatti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Packiaraj, Smart Pumps - Opp.Party(s)

L.M.Akki

11 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

ORDER ON ADMISSION

 

          The Complainant has filed a complaint against the OP u/s 12 of C.P. Act, for praying to direct the OP to order for the amount of RS.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.   

 

                                                                               FACT OF THE COMPLAINT: 

      2.     The complainant is carrying a business at Gadag in the name and style of “M/s S.F.Bevinakatti Cold Drinks” since more than 18 years having its good reputation and goodwill about his unit and it manufactures milk items for consumption.

 

          3.      Further, complainant is submits that “M/s S.F. Bevinakatti Cold Drinks” have its own identity in the eye of public. It has been consumed by Gadag and Betegeri people as a large demand and the people required at the various taste of milk products and cold drinks and other items. Hence, complainant had purchased machine for production of milk products in large, from the OP such being the case OP contacted the complainant and introduced the milk  products various items by sending pamplets of said machines and its quotation by the OP to the complainant. Hence, complainant purchased a machine from the OP for Rs.3,65,000/- and same had been delivered at Gadag for commercial purpose. The said machine had a warranty of 12 months against any inherent manufacturing defect. The above warranty does not stand valid for parts which need normal maintenance wear and tear items, sealing, rings, pressure and guage etc., this machine high pressure homogeniser 200 LPH. It is not oriented results as complainant getting output 152-160 LPH. Hence, the technical specification in which inner shell is defective found rust about stainless of AISI 304 of 1.6 mm thickness and quality also defective, grinder found defective 2 mm thickness as girder for mounting and agitator and covers like this there are so many other defects also found in the machine after the purchasing of the said machine in some days only. Hence, complainant approached this Forum for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.

 

          4.        After perusing the complaint and document produced by the complainant, the points arises before us for adjudication of this compliant are as follows:

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2.  Whether the complaint is maintainable under C.P. Act?

3.  What Order?

Our answer to the above points are:

1.  Negative,
2.  Negative,
3.  As per the final order,

 

R E A S O N S

 

          5.  POINT NO.1 and 2:   Since both the points are inter-link we proceed to answer both the points together. It is the specific case of the complainant that, the complainant is a businessmen having registered Firm in name and style “M/s S.F. Bevinakatti Cold Drinks” at Gadag.

 

          6.      The complainant produced delivery note some mails, letters of both complainant and the OP, legal notice has sent to the OP. But, here we have to look after that complainant himself submits that the business was void and he supplies the cold drinks and other milk products to both the Betegeri and Gadag. The complainant nowhere whispers that the said machine is used for his livelihood, but the complainant himself stated in his complaint that the machine was used to manufacture the milk product in large for supplying the milk product to other shops and that machine is used for commercial purpose and not for the complainant’s livelihood.  Hence, I relied upon a citation cited in III (2015) CPJ 239 (NC), PRAKASH SCANNER V/s WATTHOUR SYSTEM. It is clearly mentioned as hereunder:

        “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (d), 2 (1) (f), 2 (1) (g), 21 (a) (ii) – Consumer – Commercial purpose – Purchase of scanner – Defects – Deficiency in service alleged – State Commission dismissed complaint – Hence appeal – It is clear from partnership deed that firm is to carry business of scanning work – Nowhere it is mentioned that firm is carrying business for livelihood of appellant – State Commission rightly held that appellant is not a consumer.”

The complainant is a not a consumer, the complaint is not maintainable u/s 12 of C.P. Act, hence we answer Point No.1 and 2 as Negative.

7.  POINT No.2:  In the result of the above findings, we deliver the following:       

//ORDER//

          1.   The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is at a liberty to file a case in appropriate Court for the relief.  Complaint is hereby dismissed. No order on the costs.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 11^th day of May, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President