ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Parneet Singh, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Anil Verma, proxy counsel for the respondent. 

2.      M/s Mahadev Cattle Feed Industries has filed above appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, dated 19.02.2015, passed in Consumer Complaint No.23/2010, dismissing the complaint as not maintainable with the observation that the complainant is not a consumer.

3.      According to the office report, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 days. The appeal has been filed on 06.04.2015. 04.04.2015 and 05.04.2015 were Saturday and Sunday respectively as such in view of Section 4 of Limitation Act, 1963, it is within limitation time on 06.04.2015.

4.      M/s Mahadev Cattle and Feed Industries filed CC/23/2010 for directing the opposite party to (i) refund an amount of Rs.3585000/- and take back the machine or in alternative to pay repair charges of the machine alongwith loss suffered towards the bank loan and also to refund the cost of the items lying with them; (ii) refund the sum of Rs.439604/- being the price of the oil purchased by them; (iii) refund the electricity charges of Rs.23000/-  per month (approximately) for five months; (iv) pay Rs.2/- lacs as labour charges; and (v) pay compensation of Rs.5/- lacs and Rs.51000/- as litigation cost.

5.      The appellant/complainant is an industry run by its partners Ms. Sarita Kumari, Mrs. Nirmala Devi and Mrs. Nishu and engaged in the business of preparing cattle feed (dry gluten) and selling the same in the market to earn their livelihood. Respondent/opposite party is the manufacturer and seller of different types of machines.  The complainant wanted to purchase a machine “Gluten Dryer (Ring Dryer)” and for this purpose contacted the opposite party, who issued a quotation dated 09.10.2008 mentioning the cost, quality and other specifications of the machine.  The cost of the machine was mentioned Rs.48.45 lacs, which was settled at Rs.41.25 lacs plus taxes. The complainant booked the machine by paying an amount of Rs.50000/- on 10.10.2008. The opposite party promised that the machine would be delivered within 2.5 months. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.12/- lacs on 23.10.2008, Rs.4/- lacs on 24.12.2008, Rs.235000/- on 31.01.2009, Rs.2/- lacs on 26.02.2009, Rs.5 lacs on 23.03.2009, Rs.15/- lacs on 31.03.2009 and Rs.2/- lacs on 28.07.2009. Thus, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.4285000/- till 28.07.2009, out of which the complainant has taken bank loan of Rs.22/- lacs. Despite making timely payment by the complainant, the opposite party failed to supply and install the machine for more than one year. However, the machine was delivered by the opposite party in parts from 22.01.2009 to 02.09.2009 and it was installed in September, 2009. After installation of the machine, the complainant was required to pay electricity charges of Rs.23000/- per month. The products made by the complainant on trial basis were rejected in the market. The insulin of hot air heater stopped working after running for 35-40 hours, about which the complainant intimated the opposite party and the engineer of the opposite party visited the complainant industry who could not repair the machine. On the advice of the opposite party, the complainant sent the machine to the place of the opposite party. The complainant, vide letter dated 05.10.2009 asked the opposite party either to repair the hot air heater or replace the same so that the ring dryer plant of the complainant can be started. In the said letter, the complainant also intimated the opposite party that the ring dryer was installed after a long delay and it was not working properly. On 21.10.2009, the opposite party sent back the hot air heater after repairs yet the ring dryer was not working properly as it was not generating the proper heat due to which the product could not be dried properly and the plant again brokedown within few days, due to which the complainant could not complete