Haryana

StateCommission

CC/88/2016

SHARMA ENGG. AND FABRICATION WORKS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERCUT CUTTING AND WELDING PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.HOODA

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         Complaint No.88 of 2016

Date of Institution: 31.03.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 08.08.2016

 

Sharma Engg. & Fabrication works, 18-1, Mathura Road, Ajrondhi, Sector 20-A, Faridabad through Gaurav Sharma.

…..Complainant

Versus

1.         Supercut  Cutting and Welding Pvt. Ltd., Office: 23/7, Mathura Road, (Near Castrol India) Ballabgarh, Faridabad through Sanjay Garg, S/o Hari Prakash, H.No.492, Sector-17, Faridabad.

2.         ShahnawazMansoori, S/o Munnawar Hussain, r/o H.No.1561, Sector-28, Faridabad-Partner-Supercut cutting & Welding Pvt. Ltd., Office 23/7, Mathura road, (Near Castrol India) Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

3.         Munna Khan S/o Abdul Hamid, r/o H.No.102., Sector-19, Faridabad-Partner-Supercut Cutting & Welding Pvt. Ltd., Officer 23/7, Mathura road, (Near Castrol India) Ballabgarh,Faridabad.

4.         Afzal Khan, S/o Munna Khan R/o H.No.102, Sector-19, Faridabad-Partner-Supercut Cutting and Welding Pvt. Ltd., Officer 23/7, Mathura road, (Near Castrol India) Ballabgarh, Faridabad.

5.         Kunshan Pusan Mechanical & Electrical Equipment Co. Ltd., No.528, North Qingyang road, Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province, china through Embassy of China, 50-D,Shanti Path,Chanakya Puri, New Delhi.

                                                …..Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  R.S.Hooda, Advocate counsel for complainant.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. Complainant company is running the business of Engineering and Fabrication, for which they required a Laser Cutting Machine. Accordingly, they floated requisition in the open market in August, 2013. In response whereof, the SuperCut Cutting and Welding Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - OPs approached the complainant and proposed sale of one High Precision YAG Metal Laser Cutting Machine, manufactured by a Chinese manufacturer namely- Kunshan Pusan Mechanical and Electrical Equipment company Ltd. OPs supplied its MOA to the complainant on 09.09.2013 alongwith the order of acceptance pertaining to the said machine, whereby, the complainant was made to understand the machine by enumerating it’s technical specifications. As per the order of acceptance, it was obligatory on the part of the supplier to provide one year warranty to the purchaser for quality problem and service of the equipment after warranty period. After the payment, the shipment was carried out through bill of lading dated 18.12.2013. In this process, the complainant paid custom duty to the tune of Rs.16,41,300/- and many other expenses were made by the complainant company for the delivery of the said machine at their unit at Faridabad. When the machine was put to function then, it hardly worked for few days. On 25.03.2014, the complainant company intimated the OP and manufacturing company to look in to the same it was causing loss of business and credibility to them. According to them, the OPs had mislead the complainant and made him to purchase the defective machine, which caused huge financial business loss to them. Aggrieved against this, the complainant has approached this Commission praying for the refund of the entire amount spent by the complainant i.e. Rs.84,37,619.25p along with interest, Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and for another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of legal expenses.   
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record. On the very phase of it, it is evident that the complainant had entered into a commercial transaction with the OPs, who according to them mislead the complainant company to purchase the defective machine. This transaction has caused the complainant company a considerable financial loss to his business for which the complainant has claimed Rs.84,37,619.25p along with interest, Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for mental agony and for another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of legal expenses.   It has been settled by now by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission that the grievance of a person involving commercial transaction is not entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as such a person does not fall within the definition of “Consumer” under Section 2 (1)(d)(i) of the Act. For authority, reference may be made to Rajeev Metal Works Vs Mineral and Metal Trading corp. of India Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1083 and Stereocraft Vs. Monotype India Ltd. 2000 (1) CPC 3 (SC).
3. Consequently, we decline to entertain the complaint and dismiss the same in limini being not entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the complainant may if so advised to seek his remedy before the appropriate Court, as per law.

 

August 08th, 2016                     Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench

S.K.