PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.60 /2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited (Formerly Shyam DRI Power Ltd),

Having its registered office at 83, Topsia Road TRINITY TOWER,

7^th Floor, Ps-Topsia, Kolkata-700046 and factory at Pandloi,

Po-Lapanga, Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.

Presented through Sri.Satyajit Mahapatra  aged about 42 years,

S/O- Late Ghanashyam Mahapatra,

R/O- Rengali,Po/ Ps-Rengali

Dist- Sambalpur, Manager(legal), Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited.

(Formerly Shyam DRI Power Ltd)                                   ...………..Complainant

Versus

M/S Steewo Engineers and Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,

A-44, Riico Housing Colony, Road No.15, Badharna, Vkia,

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302013                                                 …………...Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :- Sri. P.K.Mishra & Associates
2. For the O.P.                         :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Adv.

Date of Filing:19.08.2022,  Date of Hearing :07.05.2024,  Date of Judgement :23.07.2024

Presented byDr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The Complainant is a registered company and formerly known as Shyam D.R.I. Power Ltd. The registered office is situated at Kolkata and factory at Pandloi Dist-Sambalpur. The Complaint placed order to the O.P. for supply Hot Billet Shearing Machine Square Power Pack: 40 HP, capacity: 200MT (Three machine powered by Two Power pack) 1set vide order No, SDBL/PV/13Y03203/13-14 dated 07.03.2014 for Rs. 32,13,000/-. The O.P. issued proforma invoice dated 07.05.2014 and supplied in September, 2014. When the machine not worked properly the Complainant contacted the O.P. and the O.P. advised to send the machine to workshop for repairing with assurance to return as early as possible. The machine was sent through Prakash Transport Corporation on 10.08.2019 vide invoice No. 001900022501 dated 10.08.2019 and it was received on 19.08.2019 by the O.P. After receipt also the O.P. not paid any heed and thereafter Covid-19 broke down. The O.P. assured to repair after normalisation of Covid-19. The O.P. thereafter neither repairing nor sending back to Complainant. On 12.07.2022 when O.P. was again contacted the O.P. replied it will neither  be repaired nor to be returned to Complainant and Complainant is at liberty to do whatever it likes. Being aggrieved Complaint has been filed.
2. The O.P. in reply submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. The machine has been purchased for commercial purpose. The machine was ordered for purchase by the Complainant in September-2014. After use of 5 years the Complainant informed the O.P. that there was some damage in the supplied machine and requested for making necessary repair. After checking it was ascertained by O.P. that the machine was not repairable and damaged due to some others issues relating to water. Instead purchasing a new machine the Complainant sent the machine for repair along with a sales invoice. The O.P. returned back the sales invoice for cancellation. The Complainant agreed for cancellation and did not put the GST invoice in GST-1 form.

The O.P. has kept the machine in scrap area as not repairable and also not liable to repair. Annexure-3 is a false document. There is no any unfair trade practice. The Complaint is barred by limitation and there is no cause of action.

3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant.

1. Purchased order No. SDBL/PV/13Y 03203/2013-14 dated 07.03.2014 dated 07.03.2014.
2. Invoice dated 07.05.2014 for Rs. 32,13,000/- issues by O.P.
3. Acknowledgement receipt of NVSCB401434 Biller shearing machine value Rs.17,70,000/- invoice No. 001900022501 dated 10.08.2019.

The O.P. has not filed any documents.

4. Perused the documents and pleading of the parties and following issues are framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P and the machine was purchased for commercial purpose?
2. Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by not repairing the machine and the non-repair amounts to deficiency in service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P and the machine was purchased for commercial purpose?

It is admitted by the Complainant that the Company is a manufacturer of T.M.T. Bars at Pandloi and placed order to the O.P, for supply of Hot billet shearing Machine HBS-40 pairs, Max cutting: 100-160MM square power pack:40HP, capacity: 200 MT one set. The O.P. in reply submitted that the Complainant Company is not a consumer of the O.P. as per provisions of Sec.2 (7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The O.P. cited Shrikant G.Mantri V.Punjab National Bank, 2022 live law (SC) 197. In Laxmi Engineering Works Vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428 the hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Natural and character of the machine and materials or record that it is not goods which the Complainant purchased for use by himself exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment”. In the present case the Complainant company purchased the product from O.P. for manufacturing process and not for self-employment. Accordingly, the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. Likewise in Lilabati KirtilalMehta Medical Trust Vs Unique Shanti Developers (2020) 2 SCC 265 the Hon’ble Suprement held the same view. “If the dominant purpose of purchasing the goods or services is for a profit motive, such purchaser would not fall within the four corners of the definition of “Consumer”.

Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the O.P.

Issue No.2 & 3 Whether the O.P. is deficient in its service by not repairing the machine and the non-repair amounts to deficiency in service?

                                                &

What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

As discussed Supra the Complainant is not a consumer of the O.P. question of deficiency in service does not arise. The dispute is civil in nature and the Complainant is at liberty to prefer dispute before competent Civil Court.

The Complainant is not entitled for any relief as is not a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP. No cost and compensation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23^rd day of July, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.