Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin,
President & Prof. K. Madhuri Latha, Member
BABY THANKAPPAN COLOR LAB & ANR.—Complainants
versus
TRASIBA ELECTRONICS & ORS.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 35 of 1997—Decided on 19.2.1998
For the Complainants :Mr. S. Ajith Kumar and Mr. Gireesh P. Raja, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. M.V. Muhamed Rafi and Mr. S. Reghukumar, Advocates.
A person who purchases goods for commercial purposes is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - PURCHASE OF MACHINE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - NOT A CONSUMER - COMPLAINT DISMISSED - LIMITATION - SECTION 2(1)(M), 2(D), 24A OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a partnership firm, purchased a colour printing machine from the opposite party, a manufacturer and supplier of such machines. The complainant alleged that the machine was defective and did not meet the specifications promised by the opposite party. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Commission seeking compensation for the loss suffered. The opposite party raised preliminary objections, contending that the complainant was not a consumer as the machine was purchased for commercial purposes and that the complaint was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The Consumer Commission held that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the machine was not used exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. The Commission also held that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of 2 years from the date of cause of action prescribed under Section 24A of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court in Luxmi Engineering Works Ltd. v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute held that to bring a complainant within the ambit of the provision, the complainant himself must use the goods exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment. 2. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes a limitation period of 2 years from the date of cause of action for filing a complaint before the Consumer Commission.
Final Decision: The Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant was not a consumer and that the complaint was barred by limitation.
Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, President—This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 13,62,040/-.
2. The allegations in the complaint are as follows :
The complainant is an S.S.I. registered partnership firm among family members and it is a small family enterprise consisting of Mr. Baby, the head of family, his wife Gracemma and son Ajay. The firm bears permanent S.S.I. registration dated 28.2.1994 of District Industries Centre, Wayanad, as a small scale service establishment with Studio located at MP/IV/648, Mananthavady Panchayat. It is engaged in job work in photography. Its date of commencement is on 1.9.1983. The complainant firm is represented by its proprietor Gracemma Baby. This business is the source of sole livelihood of the family, by means of self-employment. All the family members expend their capital, labour and expertise in the service unit. This studio has an average plinth area of about 800 sq. ft. The premises was taken on rent stipulating monthly rent for Rs. 1,250/-. The studio did only black and while photography. But since it has become obsolete and no business could be carried on with a black and white studio, it intended to have a colour studio. The opposite party regularly carried out advertisements in Indian Photography and Cinematography Magazine, published from Bangalore. It mentions about an indigenous Hitech Printer Processor known as ‘Trasiba FCS 600’. An advertisement of similar type is carried in back cover of the Indian Photography and Cinematography Magazine in its October, 1993 issue. The said issue, carried on article of Abdulla Basha claiming as a Proprietor of Trasiba Electronics. November, 1993 and December, 1993 issues repeated the same advertisements. In October, 1993 issue which carried an article said Abdulla Basha is a qualified Electronic Engineer and also experienced in colour photography.
3. The opposite party is a manufacturer and supplier of Transiba F.C.S. 600 Printer-cum-processor. The opposite party held out to the general public and also to the firm in particular a brochure, together with its technical specification stating a warranty that their colour printing machine was capable of :
(a) taking 1200 prints per hour in R.A. 4 Chemistry;
(b) that it was a world’s No. 1 in true colour reproduction;
(c) that it was a battery operated processor to avoid wastage at the time of power failure;
(d) that it was operative by Portable Generator capable of generating 2.5 kilowatts;
(e) that anybody with reasonable literacy could operate. Trasiba FCS 600 easily, since no judgment is needed, according to the subject, colour and density of the negative to get good prints;
(f) that the operator could print the entire roll with one combination of filters irrespective of the subject colour without trial and error method; and
(g) that Trasiba FCS 600 accommodates any paper and chemistry according to the consumer choice, whereas imported machines use a very fast chemistry which is not locally available, making it obligatory to import the particular paper.
4. These representations were made in a form that purported to be a warranty/guarantee of the product of the opposite parties. Free installation and training were also advertised. The opposite parties carried out on articles containing these and several other claims, a photographic magazine intending it to be read by persons similarly situated.
5. Being attracted by this advertisement the complainant firm placed an enquiry against which the opposite parties had sent a quotation dated 1.1.1994. The said quotation carried two clauses which were unacceptable to the complainant. That is that all claims and objections were subject to Madras Jurisdiction and that the machine carried a warranty of only six months. Quotation stated that it was valid only for 30 days with effect from 1.1.1994. The complainant did not place any order on the said quotation during its perio
