(1.) -This is an appeal against the order of 24th July, 1992 passed by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Original Petition No. 74 of 1992. The respondent complainant had purchased a Tower 386 computer on 30th October, 1990 from the appellant opposite party for Rs. 88,650/-. It was delivered on 3rd of December, 1990 and eventually installed in April, 1991. This computer was to be linked with two other computers already installed in the office of the respondent complainant. But from the very beginning the computer delivered was said to be not working properly. Complaints were made from time to time and the service staff of the appellant opposite party attended to the removal of defects of the computer supplied or to make it functional. On the 8th of August the computer was taken away by the appellant opposite party to the factory for repair and returned on the 11th August, 1991. It was taken again to the factory and returned on 7th November, 1991. The frequent break-down of the computer and the failure of the supplier to rectify the defects in the computer and make it functional led the respondent complainant to ask for refund of the cost of the computer and damages before the State Commission.
(2.) The State Commission came to the finding that as the complainant respondent is a Chartered Accountant, he had purchased the computer for the purpose of his profession and as such it was for a commercial purpose.
(3.) The State Commission, however, proceeded to state that the sale of the computer had a warranty and there was deficiency in service rendered by the appellant opposite party during the period of warranty. According to the State Commission, the warranty was a part of the contract for the supply of the computer and, therefore, "the purchaser becomes a consumer in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or supplier during the period of warranty". It, therefore, held that the respondent complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.