Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President;
Mrs. A.S. Vijayakar, Member; Mr. Y. Krishan, Member
Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member
VIJAY NARAYAN AGRAWAL—Petitioner
versus
M/s. CHOWGULE INDSUSTRIES LTD.—Respondent
R.P. No. 131 of 1992—Decided on 11.5.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashwin K. Sekhar, Advocate.
A person who purchases an article for large-scale profit-making activity cannot be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 12 - CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - JURISDICTION - PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPIER FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - INTERPRETATION OF 'CONSUMER' - MANUFACTURING DEFECTS - SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE - AVAILABILITY OF SPARES - FRAUDULENT ACTS BY PETITIONER - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a Canon N.P. 150 photocopier from the respondent company for commercial purposes, i.e., for use in his typing institute. He faced issues with the machine, including problems in obtaining consumable items and a defective drum. Despite correspondence and visits to the company's offices, the issues persisted, leading to the purchase of another photocopier, Canon N.P. 271, from the same company. The petitioner sought adjustment of the amount paid for the first machine towards the price of the second machine and claimed compensation for financial loss due to the defective machine.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner's purchase of the Canon N.P. 150 photocopier was for commercial purposes, and therefore, he could not be considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. There was no manufacturing defect in the photocopier. The issues faced by the petitioner were due to normal use and lack of proper maintenance. 3. The company provided adequate service and maintenance to the photocopier on multiple occasions. 4. The petitioner's complaint was fraudulent as he induced the company to deliver the second photocopier by providing a false certificate from his bank regarding financing. 5. The petitioner committed irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by filing a complaint before the consumer forum despite not being a 'consumer' as defined by the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's purchase of the photocopier was for commercial purposes, excluding him from the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the photocopier or if the issues were due to normal use and lack of proper maintenance. 3. Whether the company provided adequate service and maintenance to the photocopier. 4. Whether the petitioner's complaint was fraudulent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that a person who purchases an article for large-scale profit-making activity cannot be considered a 'consumer.' 2. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that there was no manufacturing defect in the photocopier and that the issues faced by the petitioner were due to normal use and lack of proper maintenance. 3. The court examined the service reports and found that the company had provided adequate service and maintenance to the photocopier on multiple occasions. 4. The court found that the petitioner's complaint was fraudulent as he had induced the company to deliver the second photocopier by providing a false certificate from his bank regarding financing.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The orders of the District Forum and the State Commission dismissing the complaint were upheld, although on different grounds. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent company.
Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—The Complainant Mr. Vijay Narayan Agrawal, now Petitioner, had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). According to the Complainant he had purchased one Canon N.P. 150 Photo Copier Machine from the Respondent, Opposite Party, M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd. (for short the Company) for Rs. 91,000/- and the machine was installed at his premises on 12-7-1988. From the very beginning there was problem of getting consumable items. A part of the machine called drum also became defective before the expiry of the guarantee period. Consumable items and spare parts were not supplied by the Opposite Party despite correspondence and personal visits to Bombay and Calcutta and the photocopier machine was lying idle for more than a year. On 23-9-1990 the Complainant purchased from the Company another photocopier machine Canon N.P. 271 which was installed in his premises on 27-9-1990. Thereafter the Complainant requested the Head Office of the Company as well as their local representative that the amount paid for Canon N.P. 150 be adjusted towards the price of the Canon N.P. 271 as the earlier machine involved problems from the very beginning in respect of consumable items, materials and spare parts. The Claimant also claimed Rs. 150/- per day with interest as financial loss as he was paying interest to the Punjab National Bank from whom he has taken financial aid for purchasing both photocopier machines.
2. The Opposite Party i.e. the Company filed a counter alleging that the photocopier earlier supplied to the Complainant was not defective. On 27th July, 1988 the Complainant had requested for supply of Toner and some spare parts. The Service Engineer of the Company visited the Complainant and rendered necessary maintenance services. By that time a total number of 5617 copies had been taken out. Again on 1-9-1988 the Service Engineer of the Company visited the Complainant and rendered necessary service and according to the meter reading a total number of 13600 copies had been taken out. On 14-9-1988 the Engineer of the Company again visited the Complainant and as per service report recorded by him and duly certified by the Complainant a total number of 17300 copies had been taken out from the photo copier Cannon N.P. 150. There was superficial mark on the drums which had been removed by the said Engineer to the satisfaction of the Complainant. The Company had fully discharged its warranty obligation and the operational capacity of the drum was about 10,000 copies for that model. As per the warranty card, the warranty was only for three months or till 20,000 copies were taken out which ever was earlier. The Complainant was advised to enter into a regular maintenance contract without which the machine could not be properly maintained but this was not acceptable to the Complainant. The Company had strong reasons to believe that the machine was being maintained by unqualified and unauthorised mechanics coupled with improper use of sub-standard locally available toners, spare parts etc. which would render such sensitive electronic machine inoperative. The Company, therefore, submitted that the Complainant could not complain about the failure to provide proper maintenance service.
3. The District Forum after consideration of documents and the statement of the Complainant who had appeared in the witness box, came to the opinion that the photocopier Canon N.P. 150 had been purchased by the Complainant for commercial purpose and therefore the Complaint was not maintainable. For coming to that conclusion, the Forum found that the Complainant was charging 40 to 50 paise per copy. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.
4. Feeling aggrieved by that order the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh. It upheld the finding of the District Forum and dismis
