Filed on: 20.01.2014 Disposed on: 15.01.2025 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :MEMBER APPEAL NO. 120/2014

O R D E R

BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER The Appellant/Opposite Parties preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2013 passed in CC.No.77/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkur.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant has purchased the water cooling machine 2X30 (60) TR from the OP by paying total sum of Rs.14.23,627/-. After placing the order the OP has supplied the said unit to the premises of the complainant on 26.06.2011 assuring the complainant to install the same very soon, but the OP has failed to keep up the assurance in spite of several reminders and requests by the complainant. Hence, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP on 31.07.2012, but the OP has failed to comply and thereby the complainant filed a complaint in C.C.169/2012 on the file of this District Commission which was District Commission missed on technical grounds and hence the complainant has filed the fresh complaint against OP requesting to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.14,23,627/- along with interest at 18% p.a and compensation.

3. After service of notice of the District Commission the OP appeared through his counsel and filed version by admitting the selling and supplying the said unit to the complainant on receipt of sum of the Rs.14,23,627/- towards part payment and contended that the complainant since purchased the said unit for the purpose of his business which amounts to commercial purpose. Further contended that the OP had already deputed the skilled Engineers to install the unit on 26.06.2011. Further, the OP had already informed to the complainant to install the water treatment plan and keep all the pipe connections ready as soon as possible so that they can come and install the chilling plant for which the complainant agreed, but the complainant has failed to comply the same. The complainant himself is a defaulter hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.

4. After trial District Commission allowed the complaint partly.

5. Heard from appellant. Respondent not argued the matter.

6. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that the appellant had admitted selling and supplying water cooling machine to the respondent and acknowledged received an amount of Rs.14,23,627/- which the appellant contended that it was a part payment. The appellant further contended that the respondent purchased the unit for commercial purpose and thus the transaction does not find within the preview of Consumer Protection Law. However, the respondent has pleaded that he has purchased the unit for his livelihood by means of self employment. The appellant has failed to produce any document to establish that the respondent had purchased the unit for business purpose and not for his livelihood. The burden is on the appellant to prove that respondent had purchased the unit for his business purpose.

7. Perused the order passed by the District Commission, it is evident that Ex.C-1 tax invoice and Ex.C12 Delivery challen which reveals that the respondent had purchased the unit of the same type and capacity as specified in the order placed pursuance to the quotation provided. T