In the light of the above definition and and explanation it is pertinent to note in the instant case nowhere in the complaint is it mentioned that the complainant is running Vinitha Photostat for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. A bare reading in the complaint would disclose that complainant has purchased the Photostat machine for the use of complainant's business. In her cross examination the Power of Attorney holder deposed that the said Photostat business has been conducted by the complainant for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Power of Attorney holder is the wife of the complainant. She further deposed that at the time of filing the complaint, husband-complainant was here and thereafter within one year her husband went abroad and worked there for six months only. The issue herein is the purchase of a Photostat machine and its defects. We are of the view that the use of a Photostat machine will yield income which would be marginal and not abnormal and that the term “the purchase of a Photostat machine for the use of complainant's business” cannot be interpreted from the angle of commercial purpose. We interpret the same for earning the livelihood of the complainant. Hence we hold the complainant as a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The next point to be considered is whether the said Photostat machine is having manufacturing defect. The specific case of the complainant is that on 23.08.2000 complainant purchased the Modi Xerox Photocopier model 5620 for Rs. 115000/- with a buy back option of his older machine for Rs. 16000/- and that complainant has been paying Rs. 2770/- as monthly instalment and paise 39 per copy to issue toner to the company and that the photocopier supplied by the company is serviced 4 times within the span of 11 months from the date of purchase which would be a clear indication of mechanical defects of the said machine. Ext. P1 is the receipt dated 01.07.2002 for Rs. 19880/- being the advance for Photostat 5620 issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. Ext. D1 proforma invoice shows the purchase of the said machine at Rs. 111000/- with a trade discount at Rs. 20000/-. Ext. P2 is the machine log book wherein the services undertaken are recorded. Since Ext. P2 is with the complainant the logging would be done with acknowledgement of the complainant. The initial burden to establish the case would lay on the complainant. Since the allegation is with regard to mechanical defect, complainant has to establish the same by expert opinion. Complainant did not take commission to ascertain the alleged defects in the said machine. It has been submitted by the opposite party that the model 5620 supplied to the complainant is the latest in that category and the said machine has been worked without developing any defect. Opposite party took expert commission to ascertain the conditions of the Photostat machine and commission report has been marked as Ext. C1. As per Ext. C1 report, specifications of the photocopier machine assessed are: <br /> Model - Xerox 5620<br /> Speed - 20 A4/11A3 p.m<br /> Make - Xerox<br /> Commissioner assessed the machine and observed as follows:<br /> (i)The photocopier was dead and non-functional.<br /> (ii)The machine sits on a sturdy but sagged top<br /> (iii)On opening the machine, wire sharpnel was found inside, indicating rodent attack.<br /> (iv)Machine needs to be intensely serviced to bring it back to working mode. <br /> Commissioner in his report stated that the argument that the said machine is refurbished one has no standing as the model referred to will have greater print speed. The service calls are not due to any mechanical defects/machine inferiority. In his summary report on the assessment, commissioner states the machine needs to be serviced to make up for the damage inflicted by rodent attack and the machine is not mechanically defective. Complainant filed objection to commission report. No attempt is seen made by the complainant to cross examine the expert commission to challenge the commission report, in the absence of which the C1 report remains unchallenged. In view of Ext. C1 report, we find the Photostat machine is having no defects as alleged by the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get replacement or refund of purchase price. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we need not consider other documents furnished by the complainant. Complainant failed to establish the complaint which has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed. <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th October 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 92/2002<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Thankamony<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Original receipt dated 01.07.2000 issued by 4th opposite party. <br /> P2 - Original machine log book No. 1025/1038/5216/5223 issued <br /> by 1st opposite party. <br /> P3 - Original receipt dated 18.11.2000, 09.12.2000, 11.01.2001,<br /> 24.02.2001, 28.03.2001, 22.08.2001, 12.12.2001 and <br /> 07.06.2001.<br /> Original invoice dated 16.11.2000, 09.12.2000, 11.01.2001, <br /> 09.02.2001, 10.03.2001, 12.05.2001, 10.07.2001, 18.09.2001 <br /> and 09.08.2001.<br /> P4 - Original letter dated 27.09.2000 issued by 3rd opposite party. <br /> P5 - Copy of letter dated 12/01 issued by the complainant to the 3rd <br /> opposite party.<br /> P6 - Copy of letter dated 12/01 issued by the complainant to the 3rd <br /> opposite party.<br /> P7 - Copy of advocate notice dated 16.01.2002 issued to the <br /> opposite parties.<br /> P8 - Original acknowledgement cards ( 4 Nos.)<br /> P9 - Photocopy of web pages. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> DW1 - Ashly <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of proforma invoice dated 30.06.2000.<br /> V COURT EXHIBIT<br /> C1 - Expert commissioner's report mahazar. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br />