CIMMCO LTD Vs. HIND FABRICS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Hind Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. , Bhilwara respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) had placed an order on 11.12.1992 with M/s. Cimmco Ltd, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company), for supply of 8 looms for Rs.8,32,800/-. However on 13.12.1992 only one loom worth Rs.1,21,120/- was commissioned by the erector of the appellant at the business site of the complainant at Bhilwara, as per wishes of the complainant. The case of the complainant was that the loom supplied by the appellant to it was not of the specifications which were agreed between the parties and that the loom supplied did not work to their satisfaction. The complainant, therefore, alleged supply of defective goods by the appellant to them and claimed a total compensation, expenses, etc. at Rs.3,12,973/-. The appellant apart from disputing the merits of the case, as put forth by the complainant against them, raised preliminary objection to the effect that since the complainant was a businessman engaged in manufacturing cloth at a large scale, it did not qualify the character of a "consumer" within the meaning of the term used in Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act ). On merits too it was averred by them that although the loom sold by the appellant to the complainant was as per specification mentioned by the complainant in his order and that as and when the services of the engineers of the appellant in the erection and the commissioning of the loom or repairing any spare parts therein were required they were timely rendered to the appellant by the complainant even after the expiry of the warranty of one year. It was further averred that since the complainant had not honoured his commitment of purchasing 8 looms from the appellant and thus had committed breach of the contract, they intended to file a suit against the complainant but as a counter-blast, the complainant filed the complaint in the present case against the appellant before the Consumer Forum.

(2.) After having considered the rival submissions of the parties, the D. F. held that the appellant had sold defective goods to the respondent and in that behalf decreed the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.3,000/- only with cost at Rs.500/-. Aggrieved against such order of the D. F. the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the observations made by the D. F. at page 5 wherein the D. F. appears to have though appreciated the objection of the appellant to the effect that the complainant was engaged in manufacturing activities at a large scale to earn commercial profits but even then held that the complainant was a consumer of the services of the appellant in the matter of removal of defects in the goods sold. The learned Counsel, placing reliance upon our order dated 4.10.1995 made in Appeal No.10/1994, Mewar Textile Mills V/s. New Standard Company Ltd. , submitted that on identical facts this Commission has already taken the view that where transaction was between a businessman and businessman, the Forums under the Act would not entertain the complaints under the provisions of the Act as the complainant would not be a "consumer" within the definition of the term given in Sec.2 (1) (d) (i ).