PANDIAN PAPER PRODUCTS vs INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES

THIS is a complaint under Sec. 17 read with Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complaint has been filed by a partnership firm claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 17,92,450/- for supply of defective machinery. THE complainant firm is manufacturer of Mill Board. It purchased machineries from the opposite parties who are sister concerns for Rs.9,20,450/-. THE machinery was erected on 9.9.92. Even on the very same day it did not function properly. It was intended to produce 3 tones per day. But it gave an output of half to one tone only. THE production did not improve even after several months. THE mechanics of the opposite parties and the mechanics of one Mother Industries, Dindigul attended on the machinery, but they could not improve the production. THE machineries had manufacturing defects, and the production cannot be improved due to inherent manufacturing defects. It is the allegation of the complainant that the supply of faulty and defective machinery is a clear case of deficiency in service. THE complainant has therefore claimed the value of the machinery and other expenses of compensation for mental pain and agony in all Rs.17,92,450/-. It is contended by the opposite parties that the claim is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the machineries have been purchased for commercial purpose. The claim is also barred by time. According to the opposite parties the capacity of the machineries and the cylinder mould was to produce only 500 Kg. per shift and not 3 tones. This is purely a sale of machineries and no service is involved.

Exhs. Al to A13 and Bl to B16 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE preliminary point as to whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable was heard. The complainant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of Mill Board and for the purpose of this manufacturing industry, they have purchased certain machineries from the opposite parties. It is alleged in the complaint that from the very day of its installation, the machineries did not function properly and did not give the promised production. It is further alleged that the machineries suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. This is therefore a case of sale by the opposite parties to the complainant of defective machineries. Admittedly these machineries have been purchased for manufacturing Mill Board and therefore the purchase is for commercial purpose. Under Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, a buyer of goods is not a consumer if the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose. It follows that the complainant is not a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

IT is alleged in the complaint that the supply of faulty and defective machinery is a clear case of deficiency of service and it is therefore contended that the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. By no stretch of imagination a sale of defective machinery can be construed to be a deficiency in service. IT is a sale pure and simple and no service is involved therein. As pointed out by the National Commission in M/s. Monarch Photocomp & Printers v. M/s. Super Engineering Corporation (1992 (2) CPR 415) that where the machine is purchased for commercial purpose and is found defective, it is not a case of deficiency in rendering service but of defect in the goods purchased by the complainant. The contention therefore that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency of service in selling defective machinery is totally unsustainable. The preliminary point is found against the complainant and it is held that the complainant as buyer of machineries for commercial purpose is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed. _____________