Lord Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 20 -11 -2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. A/09/186 - Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd., by which while allowing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is a garment manufacturer and on 30 -11 -2007, purchased fusion Retail Software for Rs.91,000/ - from opposite party/respondent for accounting system. Complainant also borne Rs.10,000/ - expenses for arrangements for the stay of engineer of opposite party. It was further alleged that during course of installation itself software was not found functional and there was no integration with the Tally software. Opposite party promised to remove the defects but defects were not removed. Alleging deficiency on the party of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint, but admitted sale of software. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs.1,01,000/ - with interest and further awarded Rs.3,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal on the ground that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer whereas learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint, hence revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of the record clearly reveals that complainant is Lord Wear Pvt. Ltd. meaning thereby that software has been purchased by a private limited Company and not by any individual. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Managing Director is the owner of petitioner company and he was carrying on business for earning his livelihood in the name of Lord Wear Pvt. Ltd., hence complainant falls within the purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. This argument is devoid of force because nowhere in the complaint it has been pleaded that Managing Director - Kishore is running business in the name of complainant for earning his livelihood and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Managing Director - Kishore was running business for earning his livelihood. As software was purchased by a limited company for commercial purposes, learned State Commission rightly held that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer in the light of judgment of Hon ''ble Apex Court reported in [2011 (1) SCC 525 - Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd.] Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on III (2001) CPJ 9 (National Commission) - C.P. Moosa vs. Chowgle Industries Ltd. and Anr. and I (1998) CPJ 38 (National Commission) - Jay Kay Puri Engineers and Anr. Vs. Mohan Brewaries and Distilleries Ltd., in which it was held that if there is a warranty for maintenance of the product and not used for commercial activity, complaint can be filed before Consumer Forum. We agree with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, but these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any documents regarding warranty of the software purchased. In such circumstances it cannot be inferred that purchased software became out of order during warranty period.

IN the light of above discussion, we are of the view that order passed by learned State Commission does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Petitioner is given liberty to approach any other Fora for Redressal of its grievance.