The main legal point established in the judgment is that goods purchased for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood by self-employment are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, and defects attributed to lack of knowledge and experience do not constitute manufacturing defects.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal directed against order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 52 of 1999. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the finding that the appellant failed to prove any manufacturing defect, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.

2. A colour laser printer manufactured by Modi Xerox Ltd. for printing documents was ordered to be purchased by the appellant on 11.5.1998 with a deposit of a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- as an advance. The balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid after installation of the colour laser printer at its premises. The colour laser printer was to be installed within 15 days of the order placed by the complainant but it was installed belatedly on 11.6.1998. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. On the date of installation itself, the complainant found the TP Kit missing for which payment of additional amount of Rs. 8,000/- was made. The grievance of the complainant was that the colour laser printer posed several problems right from day one. These problems have been mentioned in the impugned order in Para 1 as (a) to (f). The defects could not be removed by the respondents and as such the complaint was filed in the District Forum on the ground of manufacturing defects in the said colour laser printer and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

3. The complainant sought refund of the amount of Rs. 2,05,000/-, the price of the colour laser printer aforesaid and a direction to the respondents to take back the laser printer from him. The complainant has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum from the date, the amount was deposited. The complainant prayed for costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental harassment and loss of business.

4. The respondent appeared before the District Forum and filed joint written statement wherein preliminary objection regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act) on the ground that the complainant was not earning his livelihood by self-employment and in that capacity, he cannot purchase the colour laser printer about which the complaint has been filed. In this connection, it was averred in the written statement that the complainant was a large concern having six employees working in it. The complainant besides doing the business of colour laser printer was also commercially engaged in selling readymade garments, electronic goods (i.e. emergency light, watch, calculator, walkman etc.), decoration items, perfumes, bags, blankets, carpets, quilts, etc. etc. and also doing service of electronic gadgets and had installed a computer, printer and providing computer related services. The complainant could not said to be a consumer by any stretch of imagination or a person engaged in self-employment for earning livelihood.

5. The other preliminary objection raised was about the complaint being bad for mis-joinder of O.P. No. 1 neither the Head Office or Registered Office of O.P. No. 2 i.e. only one of the offices of Modi Xerox Ltd. having no link or nexus with the alleged cause of action mentioned in the complaint case. It was further contended that the complainant had concealed material facts deliberately from being mentioned in the complaint and as such, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was denied that the goods purchased by the complainant suffered from manufacturing defect. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. nor the goods purchased suffered from any defect. On merits, it was contended that the order for the purchase of C-55, colour laser printer was placed with O.P. No. 2 on 6.5.1998 and not on 11.5.1998 and the equipment was installed on 12.6.1998 and not on 11.