Suraj Industries vs ORION ENGINEERS

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

THE is a manufacturer of spare parts for automobiles and components for office equipments. It placed an order with the for the supply of Rubber Mixing Mill for manufacturing office components and automobile spare parts. THE order was placed on 22.1.92 for a sum of Rs. 69,687.50. THE had to supply the machine and commission it. THE mills were supplied after a prolonged delay on 13.8.92. Immediately after installation, defects were noticed and the defects related to alignment and nip adjustment besides water leakage. THEse defects could not be rectified by the workers of the . Hence this complaint for directing the to replace the machinery or in the alternative to refund the value and to pay compensation. The Opposite Party denied the allegations in each and every particular and contended that the Complainant is not a consumer, as the mill has been supplied for commercial purpose.

Exhibits Al to A12 and B1 to B19 are marked by consent. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE question whether the Complainant is a consumer and whether the complaint is maintainable is taken up for preliminary consideration. Admittedly the Rubber Mixing Mill supplied by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is for manufacturing automobile spare parts and components for office equipments and this is undoubtedly a commercial purpose. It is contended further by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the Opposite Party had not only to supply the mill, but also to instal and commission it and as the mill could not be commissioned because of the defective parts, there is deficiency of service. An identical question has come up for consideration before the National Commission in "Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. v. M/s. Shrimp India (F.A. No. 229/ 92, dated 27/8/93). This was an appeal from the judgment of this Commission in O.P. No. 204/ 91, therein that case, the Complainant placed an order with M/s. Richardson & Cruddas for the supply and installation of a refrigeration system in their fishing trawler. From the very day of installation, the system did not work properly and consequently the Complainant filed a complaint before this Commission claiming damages for deficiency of service. This Commission allowed the complaint and held that there was deficiency of service and negligence in that M/s. Richardson and Cruddas failed to see that the refrigeration system installed by them functioned properly. On appeal the National Commission held that the transaction was in essence purely one of sale of the equipment and the agreement for installation of the machinery was only an incidental part of the contract of sale. The purchase of the machinery by the Complainant was clearly for commercial purpose inasmuch as it is admitted that it was an ocean going vessel used for carrying out large scale fishing OPerations. Such being the position, the Complainant cannot be regarded as a "Consumer'' and the order passed by the State Commission was without jurisdiction. This decision applies in all fours to the facts of the case before us. This Rubber Mixing Mill has been supplied for a commercial purpose and the installation and commission of the same are only incidental to the contract of sale. The Complainant is not, therefore, a consumer and is not entitled to maintain this complaint.

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.