The central legal point established in the judgment is that a commercial concern purchasing machinery for self-employment purposes falls within the definition of 'consumer' under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act. Additionally, the interpretation of the term 'person' to include companies affirmed the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission over complaints involving commercial entities.

1. Saddled by the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, hereafter 'the State Commission' with liability to pay Rs. 12,95,650/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to M/s. Pal Construction Company-respondent No. 1 for deficiency in service of Sonalika Mustang Heavy Duty Back Hoe Loader, purchased by respondent No. 1 from it through Jammu Motors Private Limited-respondent No. 2, the Appellant-M/s. International Tractor Limited is in appeal against the Commission's order dated 15.12.2010.

2. The State Commission was moved by respondent No. 1 with its Complaint against the appellant and its Agent alleging surfacing of manufacturing defects in Sonalika Mustang Heavy Duty Back Hoe Loader, referred in the Complaint, as JCB Machine, within two and half months of its purchase, which were not attended to by the appellant, despite its Agent's noticing defects in the machinery supplied by the appellant to respondent No. 1 and claiming refund of Rs. 12,95,650/-, the cost of the Machinery along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, besides compensation of Rs. 2.00 lac, for, the machinery was rendered incapable of use.

3. The appellant contested the respondent's Complaint alleging misuse of Machinery and non-following of the instructions contained in the Manual for use of Machinery, by respondent No. 1, besides raising the issue that having purchased the Machinery for commercial purposes, the Commission would have no jurisdictional competence to determine respondent No. 1's Complaint, who was not a consumer under the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act.

4. The appellant, however, did not lead any evidence in support of the case set up by it in response to the respondent's Complaint. Therefore, relying on the evidence produced by respondent No. 1, the State Commission directed the appellant to pay respondent No. 1 the amount claimed by it as cost of the Machinery along with interest @ 8% per annum.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 1, being a commercial concern and having purchased the Machine for commercial purposes, was not 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as explained in the Explanation appended thereto and the Machine having been purchased by it for commercial purposes, respondent No. 1's Complaint before the Commission was not maintainable and the order made by the State Commission was, therefore, without jurisdiction, in that, the State Commission could address the Complaint of only those Consumers, who fall within the expression Consumer as defined in the Act.

6. Responding to the submissions made by the appellant's learned counsel and referring to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported as (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583 and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and anr. V. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., reported as AIR 2009 SC 1905, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that the issue raised by the appellant being no longer res integra and concluded by the judgments referred to hereinabove, the appellant's Appeal was without substance.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the State Commission and the order made by it.

8. We find sufficient force in the submissions of the respondent's learned counsel that the issues raised by the appellant, may not survive for consideration in the Appeal in view of the legal position settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgments referred to hereinabove.

9. The facts as pleaded and proved by respondent No. 1 amply demonstrate that the Machine in question was purchased by the respondent for doing its business to earn for it. There being no evidence by the appellant to disprove the above fact pleaded and proved by the respondent, respondent No. 1's case