By Sri. A.S. Subhagan,  Member:

          This is a Complaint filed under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2. Facts of the case in brief:-  For the purpose of self employment,  the Complainant  availed a loan from Vijaya Bank and through District Industries Centre, on the approval of the project by them and on the basis of the quotation dated 10.12.2018,  the Opposite Party on getting the money from the bank supplied  and installed the machinery required for  manufacture of bio-mannure.  After  taking electric connection, the unit  started functioning   in the month of  August, but  the jerker  machine  and the related components were not functioning.  On  informing  this  matter to the Opposite Party,  they insisted the Complainant to bring the jerker and the related components to the Opposite Party on the expenses of the Complainant.  The  price of the Jerker machine was Rs.25,725/-  and as the machine was manufactured and supplied by the Opposite Party, the Complainant was not able to repair it with other mechanic.  Due to the non functioning  of the machinery, the Complainant was not in a position to supply bio-mannure  as per  the orders received  and hence the Complainant has lost all the orders received,  resulting  in huge loss to the Complainant and the machinery has not got repaired till date.  Due to this the  Complainant has lost Rs.10,000/-  for taking electric connection,  Rs.8,000/-  for  wiring and about Rs.10,000/-  in respect of  electricity charges.  The act of the Opposite Party has caused mental,  physical and financial loss and injury to the  Complainant and hence this complaint with the following prayers to direct the Opposite Party to :-

1.  Pay Rs.3,00,000/-  as compensation.
2. Pay Rs.20,000/-  as cost of this complaint and
3. Replace the machinery supplied to the Complainant by a useable one.

3. Notice was served on the Opposite Party  who appeared before the Commission and filed version.

4. Contents of version in brief:-  According to the Opposite Party,  the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as per the Consumer Protection Act and the dispute raised  by the Complainant is not  a “Consumer Dispute”.  The machinery was purchased by the Complainant for industrial purpose,  after approaching District Industries Centre and bank.  The machinery demanded by the Complainant was for a rice mill and not for the manufacture of bio-mannure.  On the  basis of this, considering the invoice dated 10.12.2018, the Opposite Party had supplied the machinery and had received money from the  bank.  The Opposite Party had installed the  Rice Huller  set and pulveriser in the Complainants site and trial run was conducted to the satisfaction of the Complainant.  The allegation of the Complainant that the Jerker and the supplementary components were not functioning is not true.  All other allegations of the Complainant are being not true,  denied by the Opposite Party.  The acts of the Opposite Party have not  caused any loss or injury to the Complainant.  So,  the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation or any relief to the Complainant.  Actually at the time of invoice,  the Complainant had requested the Opposite Party to hand over the  amount received from the bank  to the Complainant in lieu of the machinery but as the Opposite Party, being an honest man, was not ready to do so.  Therefore this complaint is experimentally filed by the Complainant with evil motive.  All the documents to prove the averments of the  Opposite Party are with the Opposite Party and the bank.  The machinery have no complaint  as alleged by the Complainant.  The filing of this fake complaint has caused loss of time,  money and other loss and injury to the Opposite Party for  which the Opposite Party is entitled to get compensation.  The machinery supplied by the Opposite Party have no manufacturing defects and  therefore,  it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensation of  Rs.1,00,000/-  to the Opposite Party.

5. Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant,  documents Exts.A1 and A2 were marked from his side  and he was examined as PW1.  Chief affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party but no documents were marked from his side and he was examined as OPW1 and the complaint  was finally heard on 19.11.2022.

6. On perusal of the  Complaint, Version,  affidavits filed,  documents marked,  oral evidence adduced and the arguments in hearing, Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined  under the Consumer Protection Act and whether the dispute is a “consumer dispute”  under the  Consumer Protection  and if so,  whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
3. Relief and Cost.

7. Point No.1:-  The main contention of the Opposite Party is that the machinery supplied by him to  the Complainant was for industrial purpose   and hence  the Complainant is not a “consumer” and the dispute raised by the  Complainant is not a consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act.  For this, the Opposite  Party contents that all the material evidences are with the Opposite Party,  bank and the District Industries Centre, but he has not produced  any document in this regard to prove his contention.  On the other hand, the Complainant’s  averment is that the project was proposed and the unit was started for  self employment.  This complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The “explanation” given under section 2(d) (i) and (ii)  in the Act reads as follows “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 purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment” .  The Consumer Protection Act being a welfare legislation,  the  Commission is of the view to interpret  it in a broader sense and hence commercial purpose is deemed to include industrial purpose, also as trade,  commerce and industry are all terms being used as branches of business.  Here,  in this complaint, the Complainant  has stated that the unit was started   as a part of self employment and which as per the explanation to Section 2(d) (i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act  1986, is excluded from  the term  “Commercial purpose”  and this contention  of the Consumer is not contradicted by the Opposite Party with substantiating evidence and as such we are of the view that the complaint is a consumer and  therefore the dispute raised by him is a consumer dispute as per Section 2(e) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, the complaint is legally maintainable before this Commission.

8. Point No.2:-  It is admitted that the machinery and its components were supplied and installed as per the quotation dated 10.12.2018  to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.  According to the Complainant, the machinery purchased by him from the Opposite  Party was for manufacture of bio-mannure.  But the  Opposite  contents that the machinery purchased by the Complainant were rice mill and floor mill.  For that purpose a Rice Huller set  and Pulveriser were  installed  to the satisfaction of the Complainant and trial run was also done.  The Opposite Party also contents that it is not true that the Jerker and related components were not functioning.  To prove that  (1)  the machinery was for manufacture of bio-mannure and  (2)  the jerker and the related components supplied by the Opposite Party to the Complainant were defective and  non functioning, no evidences have been adduced before the Commission by the Complainant.  The Complainant  has not even taken steps for an expert opinion.  He has not even  tried  to produce a Commission report to prove that the jerker and related components were defective and non functioning.  All other allegations of the  Complaint and Opposite  Party are mere verbal and oral  statements,  without any substantiating evidence or legal support.  Therefore,  as there is no evidence before us to prove  the allegations of the complaint,  we are of the view that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved  from the part of the Opposite Party.  So, point No.2 is against the complainant.

9. Point No.3-  As point  No.2 is against the Complainant,  he is not entitled to  get the relief as prayed for.

      In the result,  the  Complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd  day of November 2022.

          Date of filing: 01.01.2020

                                                                             PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER   :   Sd/-

                                                                         MEMBER   :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Varghese. K. M.                       Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Vinod. K.                                 Managing Partner.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.      Copy of Invoice No.109.                 dt:10.12.2018.

A2.      License No.600/2019-20.                dt:15.07.2019.

A3.      Photos of  Jerker Machine.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT :    Sd/-

                                                                                               MEMBER     :    Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER    :    Sd/-