JOAD MANUFACTURERS Vs. JAGRUT NAGRIK & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, Gujarat, Ahmedabad dated 29th July, 2004 in Appeal No. 118 of 2001, M/s. Joad Manufacturers (hereinafter in short the Joad ) had filed this revision petition before us.

(2.) THE contextual facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Mr. Vijah Madhukar Jadav is an educated unemployed youth and accordingly he had availed loan under the Prime Minister s Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) from the bank and purchased lathe machine, drilling machine and welding machine from the petitioner. The loan amount was paid by the bank directly to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner despatched the lathe and drilling machines, but the important parts like electric motor, etc., were not despatched. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was contested by the petitioner stating that he had supplied all the parts. The District Forum held that the welding machine was not supplied at all and the drilling machine was delivered without electric motor, drill chuck and arber, etc. Accordingly, the complaint was partially allowed. Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,155 together with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 16th June, 1995, till the realization of the amount to the consumer, Rs. 1,000 was awarded as costs.

(3.) DISSATISFIED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,155 with interest @ 6% per annum within four weeks from the date of the order, thereafter, the complainant shall return the machines to the opponents. Hence, this revision petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased these machines for commercial purpose. Secondly, the District Forum did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thirdly, only the pully of the lathe machine was not supplied and as the welding machine was not supplied he had paid Rs. 5,000 in cash to the complainant, though he has not obtained any receipt for the same. The learned representative of Jagrut Nagrik brought to our notice a letter written by the complainant on 19.9.1995, which throws some light on the issue wherein he has clearly stated that the drilling machine was sent but the electric motor, drill chuck with arber, etc. was not sent. He also submitted that the complainant was an unemployed youth and he has obtained the loan under the self -employment scheme of the Government of India, hence he is a consumer.