Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1139/2016

Canon India Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh. Joy Massey S/P M/S Anugrha Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shelendra Chhabra

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1139/2016

 

Canon India Pvt.Ltd., 7^th floor, Building No.5, Epitome, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon-122002.

Vs.

Sh.Joy Massey sole proprietor M/s,Anugrha Enterprises, Hariom Nagar, Near Power House, Naka Madaar, Distt. Ajmer.

M/s.Aditi Consultants, 1^st floor, Ganesh Market no. 2, Ganesh Temple, Agra Gate, Ajmer.

 

 

Date of Order 19.9.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Shailendra Chhabra counsel for the appellant

Mr.Himanshu Sharma counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned DCF Ajmer dated 27.7.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed.

 

The contention of the appellant is that photostat machine was purchased for commercial purpose hence, consumer complaint is not maintainable. There is no pleading about the deficiency of the appellant. The photostat machine was not having any manufacturing defect. As per the service reports the machine was having dust and non-branded toner was used and complaints were cured. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the claim has rightly been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent purchased the photostat machine who is the owner of M/s.Anugrha Enterprises. In the complaint nothing has been

3

 

said that the machine was purchased for earning his livelihood and customer service report dated 12.2.2013 also speaks that on behalf of Anugrha Enterprises the machine was sent for customer service and when the product is purchased for commercial purpose consumer complaint is not maintainable and reliance has rightly been placed on 2010 (2) CPR 282 (NC) Billagi Sugar Mill Ltd. Vs. Kessels Engineering Works and I (2001) CPJ 480 Ram Singh Vs. Br.Manager Kores India where the photo copies machine was purchased for commercial purpose and it was held that complainant is not a 'consumer' and not entitled for any relief.

 

The respondent has relied upon (2010) NCDRC 83 Wipro Infotech Ltd. Vs. Toppers Multimedia Pvt.Ltd. where the machine was purchased in 1996 and prior to the amendment in sec. 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P.Act it was held that during warranty period the complaint is maintainable but here in the present case the machine was purchased on 12.11.2012 meaning thereby that after the amendment in sec. 2 (1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act.

 

The appellant has rightly relied upon IV (2010) CPJ 178 (NC) Sanjay D.Ghodawat Vs. RRB Energy Ltd. where the

4

 

National Commission has held as under:

 

“ In view of the above, we are of the opinion that whether a customer buys goods for commercial purpose and avails of services attached to the goods in the nature of warranty he cannot be considered to be a consumer even for the purpose of services during the warranty period in view of the amendment of section 2 (d)(ii) of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. In view of this the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer with reference to the services attached to the warranty and the complaint is not maintainable.”

 

Hence, in view of the above the consumer complaint was not maintainable.

 

Further the merits have also been considered. In the complaint nothing has been pleaded as regard to the manufacturing defect. No expert evidence is also submitted to prove the manufacturing defect in the machine even prior to filing of the complaint notice was only served to respondent no.2 and the Forum below also has not arrived at a conclusion that the machine was having any manufacturing defect. Service report also shows that on 12.2.2013 machine was brought with the problem of paper jam and dust. It was cleaned and advised

5

 

to protect from dust. Again on 17.2.2013 machine brought with problem of copy quality and dust. Again cleaning was done, toner was replaced and it was advised to use branded toner. Hence, both the service reports could not show any manufacturing defect in the machine and the appellant could not be made liable when the machine is not having manufacturing defect.

 

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 6.10.2016 is set aside qua the appellant.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm