SOMESHWAR PRASAD SINHA vs MITHILA DEVI

THE two issues to be considered in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and, if so, whether he has received the refund of the cost of defective printing machine supplied to him which was allegedly paid in cash.

THE case of the complainant is that a loan was sanctioned to the complainant by Bank of Baroda, Nawab Ganj Road Branch for the purchase of machines and instruments from Someshwar Prasad Sinha-opposite party No. 1, the quoted price being Rs. 66,390 and margin money being Rs. 1,390. THE complainant alleged that OP No. 1 supplied him with an old machine together with a cutting machine valued at Rs. 18,200, but the perforating machine valued at Rs. 2,000 was not supplied. THE opposite party sent the machine to one Sardar Santosh Singh along with two persons who opened the machine and cited many deficiencies and took away the machine for its repairs and it was not returned to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant filed a claim for Rs. 84,091 together with interest and other expenses before the District Forum. THE opposite party contested the case by admitting that he has received Rs. 66,390 from the complainant but denied that the machine was defective and alleged that it was damaged due to its wrong use by the complainant. He submitted that he refunded the entire amount. THE District Forum decreed that the opposite party shall pay Rs. 49,200 within a month with interest @ 15% from 29.2.1992 till the date of payment with Rs. 200 as cost and Rs. 2,000 as compensation. Complainant filed an application for execution of the order and after hearing the parties the District Forum passed the following order :

Aggrieved by the orders dated 8.8.1996, 29.1.1997 and 21.11.1996 of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

THE State Commission held that Complaint No. 175 of 1994 has been filed by Smt. Mithila Devi who is the real owner of the printing press, and who got the loan sanctioned from the Bank for the purchase of printing press. THErefore, the order passed in this complaint is proper and no interference is needed with the same. THE State Commission also held that this was not for commercial purpose as Smt. Mithila Devi had installed the printing press for her life support. THE State Commission further noted that the bill for the printing press was for Rs. 73,029 and against which Rs. 16,500 was paid as advance, Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 50,000 were paid through cheques. THE opposite party supplied the old machine instead of new one and did not give the delivery of cutting and perforating machine. As the machine did not work properly the complainant lodged a complaint that the opposite party took away the machine on 3.4.1992 after opening it, did not return the same which was admitted by the opposite party. Accordingly, after analysing the case in great detail the State Commission dismissed the appeal of Someshwar Prasad Sinha against Smt. Mithila Devi and confirmed the order dated 8.8.1992 in Complaint Case No. 175 of 1994 and order dated 21.11.1996 passed in the execution and also order dated 24.1.1997 passed in review application. Against this, S.P. Sinha has come up in revision.

THE main plank of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the respondent is not a consumer as she has bought the printing press for commercial purpose and the amount paid by her has been refunded. THE issue whether the respondent is a consumer has been analysed in great detail by the State Commission. As she was running a small printing press and bought machinery costing less than a lakh of rupees by taking loan from the Bank for self-employment purpose, it clearly comes in the ambit of Consumer Protection Act as it was not for commercial purpose. Secondly, the claim of the revision petitioner that the amount has been refunded has not been supported by any documentary evidence. He has also not produced the receipt in this regard from the respondent. Thirdly, any transaction above Rs. 20,000 has to be made through cheque and a stamped receipt has to be obtained which has not been done. THE faulty machine has been taken away by the complainant and it has not been replaced with a new machine. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.