EXCELLENT TESTING EQUIPMENT Vs. S SRIDHAR, AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/Opposite Parties aggrieved by order dated 6.6.2013 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, 'State Commission') have filed present revision petition, vide which their Appeal No.541 of 2013 was dismissed by the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant an educational and charitable institution, placed purchase order dt. 29.11.2010 with Petitioners for supply of 8 lathe machines and paid Rs.14,50,000/- as advance and balance payable was Rs.5,01,150/-. Petitioner No.2, is the authorized seller and distributor of Petitioner No.1. The machines in question were installed in the respondent's institution on 4.3.2011. Initially, there were certain problems which petitioner no.2 attended, by changing certain parts. Later on,

(3.) In its written version, petitioners took the plea that respondent is running an Engineering College and goods purchased are being used for commercial purpose. Hence, respondent is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as, 'Act'). According to the petitioners, as per requirements, they booked the materials from its supplier and supplied all geared lathe machines with standard accessories. The total amount of all the goods was Rs.19,51,150/- out of which, respondent paid Rs.14,50,000/- as advance. The balance payable is Rs.5,01,150/-. The said machines with respondent are in good working condition till today. After supply of the machines, when petitioners demanded for payment of balance amount of Rs.5,01,150/-, respondent went on postponing the payment of the amount, on one pretext or the other. After receipt of machines and using the same for more than one year, respondent is contending that petitioners have supplied different model machines. Since, respondent is using the same and has come up with this complaint after a considerable length of time, this act on the part of respondent is not fair. The respondent has not cleared the amount due in spite of issuing demand notice. On the other hand, respondent has filed this complaint as a counter case against them.. Denying all other allegations as false, petitioners prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.