A. Kader. President - The appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Erode dated 21.4.1993 in O.P, 203/92. The unsuccessful complaint is the appellant.

2. The appellant/complainant has purchased from the opposite party a transmatic PCM 401 STD call Monitor on 30.3.1993 for Rs. 20,500/-. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- has also been paid to the opposite party for installation and programming charges. The machinery carried a warranty for a period of 6 months. According to the complainant even from the very beginning, the machinery did not function very well and the opposite party was informed of the same by letter dated 24.6.1992 and by notice dated 15.7.1992. The opposite party failed to rectify the defects. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer as the machinery has been purchased for commercial purpose. It was also contended that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, the defects were rectified.

4. The District forum held that the complainant has purchased machinery for commercial purpose and is not therefore a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act and dismissed th