FINE WEAR LEATHERS Vs. LEFOOT MACHINES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint was heard for admission. According to the complainant the complainant is a Partnership Firm running a manufacturing unit of leather wears. It is a small scale industry. They purchased Ironing and Embosing Press from the opposite party at a cost of Rs.8,41,586/-. After taking delivery of the machine, they found that there was no proper safety mechanism. The complainant made repeated representations to fix the safety mechanism, but there was no immediate response. Because of the urgency and pressing demands the workers were allowed to operate with more caution but three of the workers sustained injury. The complainant wrote a letter on 31.8.1996 to the opposite party to immediately fix the safety mechanism shutter and only then they attended to the work. The machinery had other defects such as crack in the machinery, oil leakage in the RAM besides lack of Hydrolic Oil cooling system. The opposite party attended to the crack, but they insisted that they could provide oil cooling system only on payment of additional cost of Rs.20,000/-. Because of the defects the machinery was not utilised and it was kept idle for nearly two years. On account of this the complainant had to suffer heavily. There was no much delay after sales service on the part of the opposite party which resulted in the malfunctioning of the machinery. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- on 26.2.1997 but even thereafter the hydrolic cooling system was not fitted. Due to the supply of substandard machinery the complainant had to suffer heavily. The complainant asked the opposite party to take back the machinery and repay the said sum of Rs.8,41,586/- and another sum of Rs, 1,50,000/- as damages totalling to Rs.9,91,586/-.

(2.) The above pleadings of the complainant shows that according to the complainant, they purchased the machinery from the opposite party and then it was found to be defective and the opposite party delayed in rectifying the defects. On account of this the complainant suffered loss and therefore the complaint. The complainant is a partnership firm. His pleadings shows that the machineries purchased were defective and it further shows that the machineries were purchased for commercial purpose. Under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, since the machinery had been purchased for commercial purpose the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. As such the complainant cannot maintain a complaint in this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) In this view of the matter, the complaint is dismissed.