SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. Batta, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
MEERA INDUSTRIES - Appellant
Versus
MODERN CONSTRUCTIONS - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1765 of 2007 against order dated 7.5.2007 in SC Case No. 14/0/06 of State Commission, West Bengal
Decided on : 22-05-2009

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate, for the Respondent

Purchasers of goods for commercial purposes can be considered consumers in respect of services rendered or to be rendered during the warranty period, as per the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Commercial Purpose - Section 2(1)(d)(ii), Section 2(i)(d), Section 2(i)(o)

Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT for a commercial project but faced issues with its operation. The complainant sought a refund and interest from the supplier, claiming consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the complainant, though purchasing the plant for commercial purposes, could be considered a consumer in respect of services rendered or to be rendered during the warranty period, based on the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Issues: The key issue was whether a purchaser of goods for commercial purposes could be considered a consumer during the warranty period under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and held that a purchaser could be considered a consumer in respect of services rendered or to be rendered during the warranty period, even if the goods were purchased for commercial purposes.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, set aside the State Commission's order, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant could not be considered a consumer with reference to the services attached to the warranty.

ORDER

R.K. Batta, Presiding Member - The complainant, Modern Constructions, which is a partnership firm, had purchased TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT from O.P.-Meera Industries on 2.11.2005 on payment of Rs. 18.72 lakh. According to the complainant, the said TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT could not start operation from inception in spite of efforts being made by the technicians/engineers of OP. The engineers of O.P. failed to put the machine in operation in spite of their best efforts for a prolonged period. The complainant, therefore approached the State Commission seeking refund of the total cost of the TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT to the tune of Rs. 27,71,578 with 18% interest thereon from 3.11.2005 till the filing of the application and further interest thereon. The opposite party in their written submissions had contended that the TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT was purchased for commercial purpose for earning huge profit and the complainant was not a consumer on account of which, the complaint was not maintainable.

2. The State Commission had taken note of the fact that the complainant had ventured into a big commercial project and for execution of the project had purchased the TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT for earning profit. Regarding the contention of the complainant that they are consumers with the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) since the TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT was purchased for earning livelihood and for self-employment, it was held that the complainant cannot directly take shelter under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. However, relying upon judgment of this Commission in Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios and Anr., (1996) 1 CPJ 324 (NC), the State Commission held that the purchaser becomes consumer in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or supplier during the warranty period. Accordingly, it was held that though the TPH computerized HOT MIX PLANT was sold for commercial purpose, yet the purchaser would certainly be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the consumer for the proper functioning of the machinery/equipment during the period of warranty and as such, the complaint was maintainable.

3. It appears that subsequently, O.P. filed petition on 24.4.2007 for further clarification of order dated 28.3.2007 on the ground that the decisions cf the National Commission on which reliance was placed in order dated 28.3.2007 were in connection with the un-amended Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Act and after the amendment which came into effect from 15.3.2003, the position has changed considerably. The State Commission made it clear that though it would hear the petition filed on 24.4.2007, there would be no order modifying or reviewing order dated 28.3.2007, since the State Commission has no power to review its own order. The State Commission referred to other judgments of the National Commission and held that order dated 28.3.2007 was passed on correct appraisal of the complaint and was a reasoned order. The view taken in order dated 28.3.2007 was in fact reiterated by order dated 7.5.2007 and it was held that the complainant was very much a consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) since the defects had arisen within the warranty period. These orders are subject matters of revision before us.

4. The short controversy, which has been raised in this revision, is when goods are purchased for commercial purpose whether the purchaser would be consumer during the warranty period in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the amendment to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, which came into effect from 15.3.2003, excludes a person who avails of service for any commercial purpose. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, warranty is a kind of service and would fall within the ambit of services as contained in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act. Learned Counsel fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top