CHIMA ENGINEERING SERVICES Vs. SACHDEVA AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 3.5.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 18.12.1996 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2,18,400 being the price of machine for moulding the bricks and Rs. 17,840 being the price of oil with interest to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) PURSUANT to the advertisement issued by the petitioner on 25.8.1991 the respondent purchased a machine for moulding the bricks by paying amount of Rs. 2,18,400. Machine carried a warranty of one year. Machine was delivered at the place of respondent on 30.10.1991. Order of State Commission notices that it was in the evidence that after four months of purchase the machine was sent to the petitioner on 24.1.1992 for repairs and petitioner took 10 days time in repairing it. Again after two months the mechanic of the petitioner attended the machine on 3.3.1992 to re-start it. Again on 28.4.1992 the respondent informed the petitioner through a letter that the machine was not working and it was sent back to the petitioner. Order further notices that, thereafter, by the letter dated 19.7.1993 the petitioner assured to make payment after the amount was arranged as its financial condition was bad. Sole submission advanced by Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate for petitioner on admission is that the machine was purchased by the respondent for commercial purpose and thus, the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). Definition of 'consumer' as given in Section 2(1)(d) is in two parts. By amending Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) 'service' for any commercial purpose has been taken out w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Despite three services being provided within warranty period the defects in machine could not be rectified and it was ultimately sent back and not returned after repairs to the respondent. Order of State Commission would indicate that submission to the said effect was also canvassed before it but was repelled. In the facts noticed above, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission repelling the submission regarding respondent not being a 'consumer'. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.