UNITED GRANITES PVT. LTD. vs MADRAS HARDTOOLS AGENCIES (P) LTD.

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

THE complainant is a manufacturer and exporter of cut and polished granite stones. For the purpose of his business, he entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the supply and installation of a Gantry Crane, the design, manufacture, supply and erection of which was done by the opposite party at a cost of Rs. 3,24,720/-. THE work was completed in June''91. In March''92 when the crane was in use, the web of the ''I'' beam of the erane gave a way as a result of which the hoist carrying the granite block fell down resulting in heavy damage to the machinery. This was due to improper installation and inefficient fabrication of the machinery. THE matter was informed to the opposite party, but there was no response. Hence this claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,40,000/-. The opposite party inter-alia contended that the complainant is not a consumer as the supply and installation of the machinery were done for commercial purpose. It was also contended that the contract did not carry with it any warranty implied or express, violation of which can give a right to a claim before this Forum. The defects alleged were also denied.

Exhibits A1 to A 7and B1 to B 12 are marked. Affidavits are also filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE preliminary point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer and is entitled to maintain this complaint. The complainant is a manufacturer and exporter of cut and polished granite stones and for the purpose of its business it has entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the installation of a Gantry crane, the design, manufacture, supply and erection of which were done by the opposite party. The machinery met with an accident in March''92 when the hoist carrying granite block fell down resulting in heavy damage. Admittedly the machinery has been purchased for commercial purpose and hence the complainant as purchaser is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE further question is whether he would become a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the is hirer of the services of the opposite party. Unfortunately this contract does not carry with it any warranty of proper service and hence there is no question of the opposite party rendering service to the complainant for the proper working of the machinery or any deficiency of service. THE point is covered by a direct decision of the National Commission in M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. M/s Batliboy and Company (O.P. 15/91 dated 8.10.91) I (1992) CPJ 195 (NC). That was a case where the petitioner company M/s. Star Paper Mills Ltd. invited offers for the design, manufacture and installation of equipment such as impingement plate scrubbers, ventury scrubber etc., for effectively reducing air pollution below a stipulated level. THE offer made by the respondents was accepted and the system was installed, but it turned out to be defective. THE stipulated performance parameters were not achieved. THE complainant therefore filed this complaint before the National Commission for compensation. THE National Commission observed as follows : - "THE contract entered into between the parties was a composite one for designing, manufacturing and installing the equipments in the factory of the complainant''s company for controlling and reducing air pollution. THE factory was engaged in the manufacture of pulp and paper on a very large scale and the contract for the supply and installation of equipments had been entered into for the purpose of enabling the manufacturing process in the factory to be carried on without violating the norms relating to environmental pollution. THE transaction of supply and installation of the equipments had thus a direct and close nexus with the commercial activity carried on by the petitioner company. THE complaint of the petitioner is that there was a defect in the design, manufacture and installation of the machinery in as much as the performance parameters agreed upon namely, bringing down the suspended particulate matters value to less than 100 NG/NM3 on sustained basis in both the boilers had not been achieved. In other words, the complaint related to alleged defects in the goods supplied. Such a complaint can be filed before a Redressal Forum constituted under the Act only by a "consumer". THE petitioner company having procured the equipments for a "commercial purpose" cannot be regarded as a "consumer".

This decision is directed on the point and we hold therefore that the complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased this machinery for commercial purpose. THE complaint must therefore fail. 7(a). In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.