The State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act if the goods have been supplied, transported, and installed within its territorial limits. The definition of consumer includes a person who buys goods for commercial purposes, but excludes a person who buys goods for resale. The purpose for which the goods are purchased is a question of fact to be decided in each case. If the buyer uses the goods for self-employment to earn a livelihood, it is not considered a commercial purpose.

1. In this Appeal order dated 14.8.1997 of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission,(herein-after for short state commission), established under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Consumers Protection Act 1987 (hereafter referred as Act) of dismissal of complaint of Appellant for recovery of cost of x-ray plant supplied by Respondent No.1 to Appellant (with charge incurred in transportation) or return of this alleged defective plant and for compensation.

2. The factual matrix of the case necessary for our present purposes, follows hereafter.

3. Z.S. Traders, a pharmaceutical distributing concern with its principal place of business at Municipal Road Srinagar (facing District police Lines Srinagar), through its proprietor, on discussions and understanding with one Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal, Respondent 2. Engineer-cum-Representative of SIEMENS Ltd. Respondent 1, placed an order with Respondent No. 1 on 27.8.1994 for supply of x-Ray plant 300 M.A (polyskop: II) including spot Film Device Kit and other accessories. The plant was to be handed over at Srinagar on the basis of home delivery and installation was to be carried out by the SIEMENS Ltd. In all cost of plant alongwith accessories was Rs.5.00 lacs, to which Rs. 25,000/- was to be added as additional cost of spot Film Device Kit and in all the bargain was struck at Rs. 5.25 lacs

4. It was a condition of sale that before the X-ray plant was supplied and installed, the whole amount of Rs. 5.25 lacs was to be paid in advance. The Appellant made payment of Rs. 1.35 lacs and 4.11 lacs by drafts, acknowledged by opposite party. Vide purchasers order dated 27.8.1994 and letter dated 12.10.1994, the Respondent No. 1 informed the Appellant that the equipment has been booked on door delivery basis through M/S Patel Roadways Ltd. As the Appellant did not receive the plant, therefore, he approached the Transport Company. He was informed that as the Transport Company had no office at Srinagar therefore declined to carry the equipment to Srinagar. Petitioner/Appellant proceeded to Jammu and got the equipment transported from Jammu to Srinagar, after collecting it from M/S Patel Roadways Ltd. Jammu, This was in violation of the conditions of the agreement and contravened the terms of purchase/sale of the equipment and the petitioner was to pay transport charges in the sum of Rs.1000, on account of carriage of equipment to Srinagar. Besides, the petitioner was made to pay demurrage, wages to employees for running the activity for the said Unit and other expenses including tax, rent etc of the Unit Rs. 50000/- was spent on these counts. The equipment and plant was physically available at Srinagar on 2.12.1994.

5. One Mr.Bakshi, Engineer of Respondent, was contacted. Mr.Bakshi rendered his service to install X-Ray plant. He took about 25 days, yet the plant was not functional. Mr. Bakshi found that the plant was gassy and accessories like spot Filming Device, carriage for taking films, handle load sheet and M.A. Meter were missing. The matter was taken up with Respondent No. 1, who failed to send any team from Delhi to make the plant functional. The operation and commissioning of the plant was delayed and finally the plant was commissioned and made operational after the accessories and the tube were sent by Respondent No. 1.

6. The Appellant/complainant tendered a formal notice on 10-3-1995 to Respondent No.1 claiming damages of Rs.1,15,000/-and other charges for transportation and cost of spot Film Device Kit in the order of Rs.35,000/-. As there was no response, the petitioner approached the State Commission and complained that he has been supplied a defective X-Ray plant which the O.P may be directed to take back and return cost thereof in addition claiming compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-and other charges in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

7. The State Commission issued notice to Respondent No.1. The Respondent, o.p. forwarded its objections by post to the Commission o