IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Commercial Purpose – It is evident that the appellant has failed to substantiate its preliminary objections that the respondent was not a ‘consumer’ under the Act, since it had failed to establish that the purchase of the machine was for commercial purpose.
(2) Delivery – There is nothing on record to prove that the appellant conveyed to the respondent to take the delivery after having received the money through the Bank.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) challenges the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 9 of 2013, partly allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party/ appellant to pay Rs.13,88,000/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment along with Rs.1.00 lakh towards

financial loss and Rs.5.00 lakh towards litigation expenses within two months of the date of the order, failing which the entire amount would be payable with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. The appellant is before this Commission praying to set aside the impugned order, to dismiss the complaint and to pass such other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The delay of 26 days in filing of this appeal has been prayed to be condoned vide IA no. 3284 of 2017 on the ground that it took the appellant some time to locate a suitable counsel in Delhi for filing the appeal since they are based at Lucknow. For the reason mentioned in the IA and in the interest of justice, the delay of 26 day is condoned.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

5. In brief the relevant facts are that the respondent entered into an arrangement with the appellant to buy machinery to set up a unit for making welding rods on the assurance that appellant would ensure the sale of the product manufactured. The respondent who was an unemployed youth agreed to take the machinery from the appellant against payment in 12 installments of Rs.45,000/-. The appellant undertook to install the machine worth Rs.15 lakh and the balance amount be paid through Bank finance. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- in 12 installments of Rs.45,000/- between 09.10.2009 and 22.12.2010. The process for obtaining a Bank loan was initiated based upon a quotation from the appellant. The appellant persuaded the respondent to install a chemical and physical laboratory and wire drawing machine on the possibility of obtaining export orders for the same. A Bank loan was sanctioned for Rs.14,08,000/-. By 02.06.2011, despite the appellant havingpaid Rs.19,48,800/- (including disbursal by the Bank), no machine was supplied. Machine worth Rs.15 lakh was supplied to the respondent in installments by the appellant on 05.11.2011 and despite payment of the balance amount Rs.9,39,200/- on 14.11.201, the machinery supplied was worth Rs.15 lakh against payment of Rs.28,88,000/-. The respondent issued a legal notice and thereafter approached the State Commission in complaint no. 9 of 2013 which came to be decided on contest by way of the impugned order.

6. The appellant has challenged this order on the grounds that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the complaint was beyond its scope since the terms and conditions of the quotation could not be considered by it. It has also challenged it on the grounds that as per the terms and conditions of the quotation, the machinery was to be supplied only on payment of the full amount and there was no delay in the supply of the machine since payment had not been made in full. The impugned order has also been challenged on the grounds that the State Commission ignored the fact that the respondent after the initial payment of Rs.5.40 lakh did not make any further payment for almost two years till 2011 till the loan was sanctioned by the Bank. It was also argued that the State Commission failed to appreciate that the remaining machines were still lying with the appellant and that the respondent, instead of accepting the delivery, had chosen to seek refund of his money by approaching the Consumer forum. It was also argued that the State Commission failed to appreciate that because of the respondent not accepting the delivery of the machine, th