SATENDER vs VED PAL SHARMA

THE appellant is manufacturer of mini offset printing machine. One machine was purchased by the respondent from the appellant at the price of Rs. 2,40,000/-. THE machine was installed on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the respondent. THE balance of Rs. 40,000/- was to be paid after installation of the machine. According to the respondent the appellant did not fulfil its promise to get the machine functional nor did he send any mechanic to remove the defects as the machine failed to function properly right from the beginning.

AS regards the grievance of the appellant that the respondent had made only part payment of the price of the machine and in order to avoid payment of the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- as well as to avoid payment of sales tax he started adopting this tactics that the machine was defective. A legal notice was also sent by the appellant to the respondent for making payment of balance amount. The aforesaid dispute between the parties gave rise to the filing of the complaint by the respondent seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service or replacement of machine. The complaint was allowed vide order dated 17.9.2003 which is now subject matter of this appeal. The foremost objection taken by the appellant was that the respondent was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had purchased the machine for his son who was unemployed for running small scale unit of printing and since the explanation to the aforesaid section clearly exempts the commercial purpose he cannot take the benefit as a consumer. The aforesaid contention of the appellant was rightly repelled by the District Forum as any person who purchases any article exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self-employment does fall within the category of consumer. Had it been a case that the respondent had purchased more than 3-4 machines for further sale only then the contention of the Counsel for the appellant would have cut ice.

There is no dispute that the balance of Rs. 40,000/- was not paid by the respondent. There was no material on record as to what was the nature of defect the machine in question suffered from. Without going into the defence raised by the appellant that the respondent did not want to pay sales tax and, therefore, made part payment in cash and when he insisted him to pay entire price along with sales tax the respondent lodged report with the police and also without going into the allegation and counter allegation that the machine was defective and did not function from beginning we find that the controversy can be resolved by directing the respondent to return the machine which he had been retaining since the day of purchase within one week and the appellant shall refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft immediately on receipt of the machine. However, the appellant shall also pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation and other expenses incurred by the respondent.

THE appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. It is directed that the FDR deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant after completing the necessary formalities. Appeal disposed of.