IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Self Employment – It is quite clear that the complainant is engaged in business and has purchased the machine for his business because road construction work cannot be done through self-employment.
(2) Commercial Purpose – The purchase of excavator by the complainant, who is admittedly in the business of construction, earth filling and dam projects, while undertaking construction of a road under a hydropower project, is not for self-employment and definitely falls within the purview of ‘commercial purpose’.

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—These two appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 25.04.2013 of the State Commission in complaint no. 09 of 2007 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for Volvo India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘manufacturing company’); learned counsel for Alpha Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘dealer’) and the learned counsel for M/s Shri Krishna Construction and Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 25.04.2013 and the memoranda of appeals.

3. The matter was heard on 22.11.2023 and both the counsel for the appellants addressed the bench on the issue of maintainability of the complaint and the Order was reserved to first decide the issue of maintainability of the complaint.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, through its proprietor Sh. Balbir Singh Kathaiat, had purchased an excavator machine from the manufacturing company through the dealer and the same was delivered on 15.04.2007 with the warranty of 2500 hours of operation or 12 months from its commissioning or 18 months from the date of invoice i.e. 20.03.2007, whichever falls earlier. The machine was being used for construction of road for Alaknanada Hydropower Project in Srinagar, Garhwal. It is alleged that after operating 67 hours, the machine stopped working on 16.07.2007. The complainant informed the dealer immediately on the same day over telephone. The dealer sent the engineer on 18.07.2007 on the construction site and the engineer found that the engine of the machine had failed, perhaps due to some manufacturing defect. The manufacturing company and the dealer told the complainant that they would replace the defective engine with a new one within a week. However, even after one week, the manufacturer company and the dealer neither replaced the defective engine nor contacted the complainant. The complainant again made a request for replacement but the manufacturing company and the dealer instead of replacement of engine, sent service engineer of the dealer on 27.07.2007 with a blank form in which columns, like “Service Report Project”, “Customer Complaint”, “Observation”, “Action Taken” etc. were printed. The said engineer got this form signed from the complainant on the pretext that the form was to be submitted for replacement of the engine. It is alleged that as the complainant was in urgent need of a new engine, he signed the said form relying on the version of the service engineer. The complainant was assured that the engine will be replaced within three or four days. But the manufacturing company and the dealer neither replaced the engine even after 12 to 13 days from 27.07.2007 nor contacted the complainant. On being asked by the complainant regarding replacement of the engine, it was informed to him through a letter faxed to him that the engine was damaged due to an accident at the time of loading and unloading of the machine and, as such, the damage was not covered under the warranty and was advised to contact the insurer of the machine in this regard.

5. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission.

6. The manufacturing company and the dealer contested the complaint by raising a preliminary issue that the complainant had purchased the machine for commercial purpose, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the complaint is not liable to be maintainable. It is further stated that due to accident during unloading, certain parts had been damaged and the warranty norms does not cover such eventuality.

7. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 25.04.2013 partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturing company and