Haryana

StateCommission

A/699/2015

HARI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUGOS TECHNOLOGIES - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP GOYAL

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      699 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.08.2015

Date of Decision :       13.01.2017

 

Hari Gupta, Partner M/s Shiv Shakti Agro Industries Pingli Road, Karnal, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Pugos Technologies, No.11, Valluvar Nagar, Kamarajar Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Tamilnadu India 641004 through its authorised person/Managing Director.

2.      Hukam Chand Saini s/o Sh. Phuli Ram, Proprietor M/s Gorakh Devi authorised dealer FASO Colour Rice sorter of Haryana and Punjab Shop No.3, 1^st Floor, Saini Samaj Market Committee Road, Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 (dispensed with).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          The un-successful complainant is in appeal against the order dated July 22^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Hari Gupta-complainant (appellant herein) purchased one Color Sorter 240 Ch Micro Plus Series (FASO Color 240 Ch Rice Sorting Machine) from Pugos Technologies-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, vide invoice dated 29^th March, 2012 (Exhibit C-1) for Rs.15,51,000/-. The machine having been found defective, the complainant approached the opposite parties/respondent and also served legal notice dated 14^th January, 2013 (Exhibit C-2) but to no avail.  Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.                The opposite party No.1/respondent contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the machine was purchased for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant was not a consumer. However, it was admitted that the machine was purchased for Rs.15,51,000/- vide invoice dated 29^th March, 2012 (Exhibit C-1). The machine was supplied and installed in good running condition but the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs.4,51,000/-. No warranty/guaranty of two years was given to the complainant, as alleged. In order to grab the balance amount of Rs.4,51,000/- the complaint was filed by the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                Vide impugned order, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the machine having been purchased for commercial purpose. The District Forum did not consider the case on merits.

5.                The question for consideration is as to whether the complainant falls within the purview of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act or not

6.      Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, reads as under

“(d)    “Consumer” means any person who,

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or 

    (ii)              hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose

                          Explanation  For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”.

7.                Since the machinery was within warranty, therefore the complainant falls under the definition of “consumer” and complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was maintainable. The District Forum did not give any findings on merits.

8.                Hon’ble National Commission in M/s East India Construction Co. versus M/s Modern Consultancy Service and others, 2006(2) C.P.J.289 (N.C.) held that even though the machine/equipment is used for commercial/industrial purposes, if any manufacturing defect occurs during the warranty period then the issue is covered under the Consumer Protection Act and for that purpose purchaser of the equipment is entitled to file a complaint under the Act.

9.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position enunciated above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Karnal, to decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of three months, which shall be from the date of first appearance of the parties before the District Forum.   

10.      Record of the District Forum alongwith a copy of this order be sent forthwith.

 

Announced 13.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL