Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39446
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL
Mridula Roy, Presiding Member, Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Bharat Machine Tools Industries – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Puspa Ago Udyog – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/19/A/627/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunita Guha, Nadeem Sulaiman
For the Respondents: Biswajit De
A person who purchases goods for commercial purposes is considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act if such goods are acquired for the purpose of earning a livelihood by means of self-employment.
Headnote:The case involves an appeal under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, regarding the supply of a defective Paddy Pulverizing Manufacturing Unit. The complainant, a rural youth seeking self-employment under the PMEGP Scheme, purchased machinery from the appellant (seller) and the second respondent (manufacturer). It was alleged that the machinery was delivered late, suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, and had a capacity of 600 Kgs per hour instead of the ordered 1500-1600 Kgs per hour, leading to the perishing of stored raw materials. The primary issues were whether the complainant qualified as a 'consumer' despite the commercial nature of the purchase and whether the machinery was defective. The court held that since the machinery was used for livelihood by means of self-employment, the complainant is a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act, 1986. The court found that both the seller and manufacturer were liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, as evidence from technical reports and correspondence confirmed the inherent defects and incorrect specifications. The Appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly.
Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
The present appeal has been filed u/s. 17 of CP Act, 1986 by the Appellant, Bharat Machine Tools Industries against the Respondent no. 1 M/s. Puspa Agro Udyog and the Respondent No. 2 M/s. L.K Engineering Works assailing the Order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Burdwan.
The facts of the case in brief are that the Proprietor of Respondent No. 1/Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Complainant’) being an educated unemployed rural youth decided to engage himself through self-employment with the help and assistance of the family members. Accordingly, he approached the DIC, Burdwan to get an opportunity for self-employment under the PMEGP Scheme and being a certified candidate for the same submitted project report of Paddy Pulverizing Manufacturing Unit. The said project was finally allowed and a bank loan was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant. Then the Complainant took quotations and photos of a complete manufacturing unit from the Appellant/OP No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP No.1’). Then the OP No. 1 made an elaborate presentation about the unit before the Complainant. Being satisfied the Complainant placed the Order for delivery of the machineries/units. The OP No. 1 assured that the complete machinery would be delivered within 7 days from the date of payment. On good faith Complainant placed the Order and paid the entire amount on 12.12.2013 but for the reason best known to the OP No. 1 the unit of machinery was delivered on 22.02.2014 after a delay of three months. The OP No. 1 sent their staff and mechanic within 7 days from the date of delivery for installing the unit. But the installation could not be done due to non-construction of pucca concrete foundation which actually took time twentytwo to twenty five days. Thereafter, the Complainant waited for long two months for installation. Then, the Complainant contacted with the Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP No.2’) for installing the machineries who by turn demanded Rs. 15,000/- since OP No. 1 defaulted in payment till that date. The Complainant being bound to deposit the amount in the account of OP No. 2 who sent the mechanic from Delhi namely, Mr. Upendra Sahoo on 04.07.2014. The said mechanic could not activate the machine due to the inherent defect in the machineries supplied by the OP No. 1. Further, the mechanic revealed that the machine in question was not of working capacity of 1500-1600 Kgs per hour as per Order but of 600 Kgs per hour. Other supplied machineries were also not in accordance with the Order placed by the Complainant. The concerned mechanic at the time of installing the machinery replaced the shaft and pully of the chalna. The said mechanic clearly mentioned about the inherent defect in machinery in his own handwriting. After continuous correspondence by the Complainant the OP No. 1 finally sent their mechanics on 31.08.2014 who were totally failure in running the machineries. On 31.08.2014 the mechanics opined about the inherent manufacturing defects and further they have cautioned the Complainant since there are inherent defects any effort to run the machine would be dangerous. On 12.08.2014 the Complainant received an e-mail from OP no. 1. The OP no. 1, by their letter dated 20.08.2014, promised to replace the defective machineries and would compensate the loss of the Complainant. Then the Complainant sent his letter on 11.10.2014 reminding the OP No.1 regarding their commitment made on 20.08.2014. From the letter of the Advocate on behalf of OP No. 1 dated 13.11.2014 the Complainant came to know that the OP No. 1 sold the machineries at a much higher price than the actual price. That letter also revealed that the unit supplied to the Complainant was an old one and does not match the specifications as per Order placed by the Complainant. The said factum would be clear when it was disclosed that the OP No. 1 had supplied grinding machine having capacity of 600 Kgs per hour
