1. THIS revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was wrongly registered as appeal has been presented on behalf of M/s. Kores India Ltd., through its General Manager, Divisional Manager and Manager on 12.7.1991 against the order dated 19.4.1991 passed by the District Forum, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 3 of 1990. Copy of the impugned order has been filed which was received by revisionist on 29.6.1991. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on three grounds firstly that the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition given under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the photo- copier machine was purchased for commercial purpose and secondly the District Forum, Sitapur has no territorial jurisdiction to try and hear the complaint as the said machine was purchased from Lucknow and the complainant (respondent here) had already filed a Complaint Case No. 144/90 before the District Forum Lucknow which was pending there and thirdly that the complainant did not purchase the said machine from the revisionists but it was purchased from Kores Business System Ltd., as per the sale letter and payment receipts filed by the complainant before the District Forum.
2. THIS revision was fixed for hearing on 4.2.1997 but none on behalf of the respondent (complainant) was present. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel of the revisionists while the President of the State Commission was out of the town being abroad. Order was reserved.
The case in brief is as has been observed by the District Forum in its order dated 19.4.1991 under appeal that the complainant Shakti Prem Sethi purchased an Electrostat Machine from the opposite parties (here revisionists) for Rs. 73,660/- and there was also a service contract at the sum of Rs. 4,000/- per annum for maintaining the machine by the opposite parties for proper working. Entire amount was paid and the machine was installed on 2.11.1998 though supposed to be installed in October, 1998. The machine could not work due to its manufacturing defects inspite of the charge of various parts and on making of the several complaints and visits of the engineers of the opposite parties for repair. The result was that his business was affected and he prayed the District Forum by filing a complaint for a number of reliefs like to replace the machine or pay Rs. 73,060/- price of the machine, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the damages his business loss and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant.
The learned Counsel for the revisionists had presented and laid emphasis that the complainant is not a consumer as per admission of the complainant in his complaint which shows the machine in question was purchased for the ''Commercial Purpose'' to earn profit and expand business. This legal plea was also raised by the revisionists in paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of their written statement filed before the District Forum. Our attention has also been drawn to the paras 1 and 2 of the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Forum. The original record of the Case No. 3 of 1990 was before us at the time of the hearing. The following extracts of the paras 1 and 2 are worth reading to appreciate the arguments put forward by the Counsel of the appellant. xx xx xx
3. FROM the contents of the above paras it transpires that the complainant is a leading businessman and a partner of M/s. Sethi Photo Copiers and runs the management thereof and has been doing the business of the photostat and in order to further expand his business he decided to purchase the Electrostat Machine and after making detailed survey the machine in question was purchased. FROM these contents of the paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint it is established that the complainant had purchased the photostat machine in order to expand his business to earn profit and not for self- employment as he had been doing other business including the business of the photostat and he is well-known leading business of Sitapur as per his own admission in the complaint. Inspite of the objection made in this regard by the revisionists in their written statement in paras 26 to 28 the District Forum failed to make any observation thereon as is evident from its order dated 19.4.1991. Thus we find ourselves in agreement with the plea of the learned Counsel that the machine in question was purchased for commercial purpose in furtherance of the already existed business of the complainant and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the term ''Consumer'' defined under Section 2(1)(d)(i) which provides that a person who obtains or purchases goods for resale or for any Commercial Purpose is not a ''Consumer''.
When the complainant (respondent here), is not a consumer, his complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. Thus the revisionists succeed in the present revision and the impugned order passed by the District Forum in Case No. 3 of 1990 is liable to be set aside on this very issue.
4. SINCE the complainant is not ''Consumer'' there is no need to enter into other grounds of the revision as the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
We, therefore, set aside the order dated 19.4.1991 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 3 of 1990. The complainant may seek his remedy somewhere else if available to him.
Let copy of the order be sent by post to the parties as per rules within two weeks and in the same time the original record of the Case No. 3 of 1990 be also sent to the District Forum, Sitapur alongwith a copy of this order. Revision Petition allowed.
