H C L LTD Vs. C L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short controversy on an important point is to be decided in this appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent, who is a retired official purchased an Electrostat Machine with the hope that he will be able to supplement his income. The money he had received at the time of his retirement was invested in purchasing an Electrostat Machine from the present appellants. The purchase was made by him on 4th November, 1992 with a gurantee for three months. Before the Commission, the complainant alleged that from the very date, the machine was purchased, it developed technical defects and failed to perform satisfactorily. He requested the appellants to look into the matter but nothing was done, the respondents thereafter made written complaint to the appellants, who directed the Engineer concerned to visit the place and examine the machine. The Engineer deputed by the appellants examined the machine but was not able to make the machine work. Then an offer was made by the appellants to the respondent that the machine shall be replaced. Neither the machine was made workable nor any machine was sent as a replacement, therefore, the respondent requested the appellants that the money given by him as the cost of the machine be refunded to him as he was no more interested in getting the replacement of the machine. A letter was sent to appellants and the refund was sought before 20th June, 1993. On 13th July, 1993, the appellants refused to make the payment and the complainant filed a complaint before the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission on 12th August, 7993. The matter was contested by the present appellant and on 28th February, 1994, the complaint was decided by the commission, who directed that an amount of Rs. 63.000/ - being the cost of Machine and also Rs. 5.000/ - as compensation be paid to the complaint. Against this order, an appeal has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(3.) ONLY one ground has been taken to challenge the order of the Commission. According to the counsel for the appellants, the machine has been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant was not consumer within the meaning of Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987. The consumer has been defined in section 2 (d) of the Act, it means: - "Consumer" means any person who, - (i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been 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 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."