STAR PAPER MILLS LTD Vs. BATLIBAI AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company M/s. Star Papers Mills Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of paper and pulp and they have their manufacturing unit at Saharanpur in U.P. With a view to check and control air pollution resulting from the manufacturing process carried on in the factory, the petitioner company invited offers for the design, manufacture, supply and installation of equipments such as Impingement Plate Scrubbers, Ventury Scrubber etc. for effectively reducting air pollution below a stipulated level. The offer of the respondents for carrying out the work was accepted by the petitioner and a contract was entered into between the parties in January/February, 1988.

(2.) The gist of the complaint is that the equipments supplied by the respondents turned out to be defective and that the stipulated performance parameters were not achieved and even though the petitioner company requested the Opposite Party to rectify the defects, their technicians/engineers were unable to remove the defects. The petitioner thereupon preferred this complaint praying that the Opposite Party be directed to refund the price paid together with compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the company due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.

(3.) The respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections where they have stoutly refuted the contention of the petitioner that the equipments supplied by them were defective. According to the respondents the petitioner company was itself to blame for the failure to achieve the desired standards of performance because the data furnished to them by the petitioner on the basis of which the equipments were designed and manufactured turned out to be materially incorrect. Various other pleas have been raised on the merits in the counter of the respondents but it is unnecessary for us to advert to those contentions in detail since we are inclined to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the forefront of their counter statement that the equipments were obtained by the complainant for a 'commercial purpose' and hence the petitioner company cannot be regarded as a 'consumer' under the Act.