1. THIS is a complaint filed by Manjit Singh against Dharam Pal Gupta, under Section 12 read with Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') on 17.8.1992.
2. THE complainant''s case is that he is running the business of ''Atta Chakki'' at village Palsora, U.T. Chandigarh and that in order to expand his business, i.e. to increase his income, he contacted the respondent-company and purchased from them a Diesel Engine known as "Kirlosker type Make Kumar" for Rs. 48,883.50. THE gist of the complaint is that the diesel engine supplied by the respondent-Company turned to be defective and that the stipulated performance parameters were not achieved and even though the complainant requested the respondent-Company to rectify the defects, their technicians were unable to remove the defects. THE complainant there upon preferred this complaint praying that the respondent Company be directed to refund the price, paid or replace it, together with compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the respondent.
The respondent-Company has filed a detailed written statement wherein they have stoutly refuted the contention of the complainant that the equipment supplied by them was defective. According to the respondent-Company, the complainant was to blame for the failure to have the desired performance, because he failed to replace Mobil oil of the engine in spite of the directions given by them.
It is not the case of the complainant that he was doing business for his livelihood. On a close perusal of the documents filed by the complainant and his averments in the complaint, we feel doubtful as to whether the purchase of the diesel engine was not for commercial purpose. The complainant''s Counsel, when asked by us, submitted that the complainant in his business venture had purchased a diesel engine. In a number of cases the National Commission, as well as the various State Commissions, including ours, have elaborately discussed and decided the question about the jurisdiction of the consumer disputes redressal agencies over the disputes of goods which include machinery used in business activities where the purpose is to make profit. The decisions have unanimously been that such dispute fall outside the jurisdiction of the disputes redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the aggrieved does not come under the purview of the definition of the "consumer" as per Section 2(1)(d)(i).
3. SECTION 2(1)(d)(i) defines a "consumer" as any person who "buys for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration pa id or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose." It is a settled fact that commercial purpose means any purpose wherein the primary objective is to make profit.
The National Commission''s decision in Synco Textiles (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., I (1991) CPJ 499 (NC) and Oswal Fine Arts v. H.M.T. Madras, I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC) amply illustrate the above position. Applying the norms laid down by the various consumer disputes redressal agencies, we are constrained to declare that the complainant does not fit himself in the definition of "consumer" as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the complainant has proved his case and has also canvassed our sympathy as a person who fell a prey to the tall promise of the ''respondent-Company and purchased the defective diesel engine and lost an appreciably good amount and suffered damage, this Commission is not in a position to give any relief to him under the Consumer Protection Act. He will have to seek redressal through the appropriate Civil Court.
4. IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.
