Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President & Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member
SHAILENDRA SINGH PAWAR—Appellant
versus
KORON BUSINESS SYSTEM LIMITED & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 196 of 1995––Decided on 1.1.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mrs. Sangeeta Moharir, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
A person who purchases a photocopier machine for self-employment and not for commercial purposes is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D) - PURCHASE OF PHOTOCOPIER MACHINE FOR SELF-EMPLOYMENT - NOT COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - COMPLAINANT IS A CONSUMER - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PART OF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AT PLACE OF INSTALLATION - SECTION 11(2)(C) OF THE ACT - APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a photocopier machine for self-employment with a warranty of three months. The machine did not function properly within the warranty period despite repairs and part replacements. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam, seeking compensation. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the machine was purchased for commercial purposes and that it had no territorial jurisdiction as the machine was purchased at Indore.
Finding of the Court:
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. The Commission held that the purchase of the photocopier machine was for self-employment and not for commercial purposes, as the complainant was charging only 40 to 50 paise per copy and was paying interest on a loan taken from the bank to purchase the machine. The Commission also held that the complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or supplier during the warranty period and under the terms of the maintenance agreement. The Commission further held that the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose at Ratlam, where the machine was installed and serviced by the opposite party's employees.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purchase of the photocopier machine was for self-employment and not for commercial purposes, as the complainant was charging only 40 to 50 paise per copy and was paying interest on a loan taken from the bank to purchase the machine. 2. The complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or supplier during the warranty period and under the terms of the maintenance agreement. 3. The District Forum had territorial jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose at Ratlam, where the machine was installed and serviced by the opposite party's employees.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the District Forum was set aside, and the case was sent back for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—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 Section 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 Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. See the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 774/95, Jila Vikraya Prabhandhak, Modi Xerox Limited v. Smt. Draupadi Pateriya, decided on 7.12.1998.
4. Even, for arguments sake, the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, there was a warranty of three months besides maintenance agreement, hence, the complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or the supplier during the period of warranty as well as under the terms of the maintenance agreement. See the decisions of the National Commission in M/s. Amtres Ambience Limited v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr. I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC)=(1999) NCJ 120; M/s. Jay Kay Puri Engineer & Anr. v. M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited, II (1997) CPJ 26 (NC)=(1996) NCJ 267; and the Secretary Consumer Guidance and Research Society of India v. M/s. BPL India Limited, I (1992) CPJ 140 (NC), followed by this Commission in Appeal No. 690/95, Vinod Kumar v. Telco (Tata Engg.) & Ors., Appeal No. 691/95, Smt. Urmila Rai v. Telco (Tata Engg.) & Ors., Appeal No. 307/96, Amritpal Gupta v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Company Limited & Ors., and in Appeal No. 478/98, M/s. Shokhi Industries v. M/s. First House, decided on 31.5.1999.
5. As to territorial jurisdiction, true, the machine was purchased at Indore and that opposite party had no branch office at Ratlam. But, the fact remains that the mach
