SHAILENDRA SINGH PAWAR vs KORON BUSINESS SYSTEM LIMITED

THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 13.2.1995 passed in Complaint Case No. 5/93 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE complainant vide bill No. 4229/9091 dated 27.11.1990 purchased a Kores Sharp 1101- R Machine No. 8338-05-90 Automatic Plain Copier in Rs. 76,000/- with a warranty of three months from the opposite party''s office situated at Indore. Besides, the machine other items i.e. Starting Kit, Developer-one bottle, tonner- two bottles, silicon oil-one bottle and 50 sheets, CVC Master No. 1 and Paper A-3 and A-4 size were also purchased. THE opposite party installed the machine at Ratlam. THE machine was purchased by the complaint for his self employment for earning livelihood after taking loan of Rs. 73,500/- from the State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Ratlam, which was to be repaid in 54 instalments. THE machine did not function properly within the warranty period, inspite of the repair and change of parts at Ratlam by the Service Engineer of the opposite party. Request of the complainant for change of the machine was not accepted by the opposite parties. THE complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Ratlam to claim the compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. THE complaint was resisted. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that machine was purchased for commercial purpose, therefore, the complainant was not the consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') and that the machine was purchased at Indore, therefore, it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. After hearing learned Counsel Mrs. Sangeeta Moharir and on perusal of the record we are of the opinion that the order of the District Forum cannot be Sustained. The purchase of photocopier machine was for earning livelihood by self employment. The purchase of machine had no connection with any large scale profit so as to make the activity as of commercial purpose. The complainant was charging only 40 to 50 paise per copy. The complainant was paying interest on the loan advanced by the Bank which was to be repaid in 54 instalments, hence, in the circumstances it cannot be assumed that by preparing copies by the use of consumable copier it would have enabled the complainant to generate large profits, so as to say that photocopier was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant was not a consumer within the ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. See the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 774/95, Jila Vikraya Prabhandhak, Modi Xerox Limited v. Smt. Draupadi Pateriya, decided on 7.12.1998.

Even, for arguments sake, the machine was purchased for commercial purpose, there was a warranty of three months besides maintenance agreement, hence, the complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in respect of the services rendered or to be rendered by the manufacturer or the supplier during the period of warranty as well as under the terms of the maintenance agreement. See the decisions of the National Commission in M/s. Amtres Ambience Limited v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr. I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC)=(1999) NCJ 120; M/s. Jay Kay Puri Engineer & Anr. v. M/s. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Limited, II (1997) CPJ 26 (NC)=(1996) NCJ 267; and the Secretary Consumer Guidance and Research Society of India v. M/s. BPL India Limited, I (1992) CPJ 140 (NC), followed by this Commission in Appeal No. 690/95, Vinod Kumar v. Telco (Tata Engg.) & Ors., Appeal No. 691/95, Smt. Urmila Rai v. Telco (Tata Engg.) & Ors., Appeal No. 307/96, Amritpal Gupta v. Tata Engineering and Locomotives Company Limited & Ors., and in Appeal No. 478/98, M/s. Shokhi Industries v. M/s. First House, decided on 31.5.1999.

AS to territorial jurisdiction, true, the machine was purchased at Indore and that opposite party had no branch office at Ratlam. But, the fact remains that the machine was installed at Ratlam by the employees of the opposite party. Besides, during the warranty period to remove the defects in the machine, the machine was attended by the Service Engineer at Ratlam at several occasions. Under the service agreement service was to be rendered at Ratlam by the opposite party. In the circumstances, the case of the complainant was covered by Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, as, at least part of cause of action, arose at Ratlam. To say so we place reliance on a decision of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case of United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Arora Goods Transport Company, I (1999) CPJ 384. In view of the above the order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously as far as possible within 90 days from the date of appearance of the parties, which is fixed as 14.7.1999.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to District Forum with the record of the case post haste. Appeal allowed.