SHAILENDRA SINGH PAWAR Vs. KORON BUSINESS SYSTEM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 13.2.1995 passed in Complaint Case No.5/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The complainant vide bill No.4229/9091 dated 27.11.1990 purchased a Kores Sharp 1101- R Machine No.8338-05-90 Automatic Plain Copier in Rs.76,000/- with a warranty of three months from the opposite party's office situated at Indore. Besides, the machine other items i. e. Starting Kit, Developer-one bottle, tonner- two bottles, silicon oil-one bottle and 50 sheets, CVC Master No.1 and Paper A-3 and A-4 size were also purchased. The opposite party installed the machine at Ratlam. The machine was purchased by the complaint for his self employment for earning livelihood after taking loan of Rs.73,500/- from the State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Ratlam, which was to be repaid in 54 instalments. The machine did not function properly within the warranty period, inspite of the repair and change of parts at Ratlam by the Service Engineer of the opposite party. Request of the complainant for change of the machine was not accepted by the opposite parties. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Ratlam to claim the compensation of Rs.70,000/-. The complaint was resisted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that machine was purchased for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant was not the consumer under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'act') and that the machine was purchased at Indore, therefore, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel Mrs. Sangeeta Moharir and on perusal of the record we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum cannot be Sustained. The purchase of photocopier machine was for earning livelihood by self employment. The purchase of machine had no connection with any large scale profit so as to make the activity as of commercial purpose. The complainant was charging only 40 to 50 paise per copy. The complainant was paying interest on the loan advanced by the Bank which was to be repaid in 54 instalments, hence, in the circumstances it cannot be assumed that by preparing copies by the use of consumable copier it would have enabled the complainant to generate large profits, so as to say that photocopier was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant was not a consumer within the ambit of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act. See the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.774/95, Jila Vikraya Prabhandhak, Modi Xerox Limited V/s. Smt. Draupadi Pateriya, decided on 7.12.1998.