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 the complaint with costs.. Hence this appeal. There is no doubt that the complainant has purchased his machinery for commercial purpose and the complainant is not therefore a consumer within the meaning of the Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. But the machinery carries a warranty for a period of 6 months and it is incumbent upon the opposite party to see that it functioned properly during the period or warranty if there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in seeing to the proper functioning of the machinery during the period of warranty, it is actionable. The complainant will therefore become a consumer within the meaning of See 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as hirer of the services of the opposite party. This is the view held by this Commission and by the National Commission in 1992(1) C.P.J. 167 N.C. We hold that the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. According to the complainant, the machinery worked well only for 20 days and defaulted thereafter. He has made a complaint to the opposite party in letter on 24.6.1992 and by notice to the defect on 15.7.1992. The opposite party contended that the complaints have been attended to as per Exh. B1 job card. But perusal of Exh. B1 job card would show that on 7.4.1992 installation has been made and the remarks column stated that it is functioning properly. On 26.5.1992 the date and time have been corrected and upheld. Exh. B 1 nowhere says that any defect in the working of the machinery was attended to or rectified. The contention of the opposite party that the defects were duly attended to cannot be accepted. It is the duty of the opposite party to see to the proper functioning of the machinery.

5. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite party to attend to the repairs in the machineries supplied by it and see to its proper functioning within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. No costs.