ORDER

1.       The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) in challenge to the Order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in complaint No. 322 of 2016 whereby the complaint was allowed against Jyoti CNC Automation Ltd. and MTA Technologies and the same was dismissed against Siemens Limited. 

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘manufacturer’ and the ‘authorised dealer’), the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant firm’) and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘supplier of electrical and electronic parts’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 04.04.2018 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The facts, in brief, are that the complainant firm, who is engaged in the business of manufacturing of knitting machines spare parts and having its small scale industry at Ludhiana for the last 15 years, bought a CNC machine, computerised automated multi-utility machine, on 27.09.2015 from the authorised dealer for an amount of Rs. 25,27,024/- by availing a bank loan of Rs. 19 lakh from J & K Bank Ltd. Since the installation of the machine i.e. on 04.12.2015, the complainant firm complained about some noise coming from the said machine and various other complaints were made with the authorised dealer to rectify the defects. The technical staff/engineers of the authorised dealer made visits to the site where the machine was installed every time and conducted inspections. The ‘supplier of electrical and electronic parts’ even replaced the spindle motor on 30.05.2016. However the complainant firm was not satisfied. As per the manufacturer and the authorised dealer, the CNC machine is run with the help of computerized programming and software loaded and developed in the machine and hence is bound to make some noise while it is running and the complainant firm was many a times told that the sound is normal.

          It is alleged that the machine was commissioned on 4.12.2015 and the complainant firm reported the complaint to the authorized dealer right from the beginning i.e. on 19.12.2015 and since then the same has not been resolved in-spite of continuous repairs and change of parts etc. The initial problem was sound and noise of the spindle motor. Thereafter, it turned to overheating of the machine followed by running only at low RPM and then burning of main electricity meter twice. The replacement of PP module and bypass of Power Filter Card also did not remove the defect. Besides this, the machine did not run at full strength or capacity as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the sale. The machine has always been remained in continuous complete or partial break down.

4.       Being aggrieved the complainant firm filed a complaint before the State Commission.

5.       The manufacturer and the authorized dealer in their joint reply took preliminary objection that the complainant firm is running business of manufacturing spare parts since 1985 having a turnover in crores and the complainant firm is being run by Manpreet Singh, Hardeep Singh and their father, partners of the firm under the name and style of Lal Singh Panesar & Sons, with the help of Managers, Supervisors and workers employed by them. It is averred that the complainant firm had purchased the said machine for commercial purpose to further boost up business and to earn more profits and not for self-employment. Further, the complainant firm for last more than 20 years is running the factory with the help of a team of workers and managers and, as such, it could not be said that the complainant has purchased the machine to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment. As such, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d