1. THE facts giving rise to this appeal against the Order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad passed in Complaint Number 117 of 1990 are that the complainant-appellant who is carrying on the business of photo composing and printing on off-set machine had purchased a "Stallion Brand" super off set machine along with all the accessories from the Opposite Party (now respondent), who are the manufacturers of this machine and several other brands of offset printing machines. THE complainant had initially paid Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter a further amount of Rs. 1,49,275/- on June 27, 1989 was paid. According to the complainant, when the machine was erected by the engineers deputed by the Opposite Party, it gave the speed of 1,900 copies during the whole whereas, according to the leaflet published by the Opposite Party, the said printing machine was supposed to give 6,000 impressions per hour. THE service report prepared by the engineers of the respondent also showed that the machine was not giving satisfactory work and was defective and could not be repaired by them. It was further the case of the complainant that on account of the failure of the machine to give the promised impressions and satisfactory performance a tri-parte meeting was held and it was decided to send the machine to Bombay to the workshop of the Opposite Party for carrying out proper repairs. When the machine was alleged to have been repaired, the Opposite Party sent for the complainant for taking trial. However, when the complainant went to Bombay for the purpose of witnessing the trial, the Opposite Party could not give any trial and informed him that the machine had been sent to Tarapur. THE complainant had to return to his place at Baroda and, thereafter filed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking various reliefs.
2. FROM the Judgment of the State Commission, it would appear that it tried to bring a settlement between the parties. However, no settlement could be arrived at. The State Commission posed the question that whether the complainant was a "Consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). It was urged on behalf of the Opposite Party that the off-set machine was purchased by the complainant for its "commercial purpose" and therefore, it was not a "Consumer" within the meaning of the Act.
The Commission held that the machine had been purchased by the complainant for its business of photo composing and printing. It was a "commercial purpose" as there was no dispute that the pointing required to be done was for the purpose of work assigned by the complainant''s customers. Accordingly, it was held that the complainant was not a "Consumer" within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, the Commission could not enter into the merits of the case. The Commission further remarked that otherwise also the disputes were of such nature that those could not be resolved, without making elaborate enquiry and without taking oral evidence, which might also require leading evidence of Expert, and several questions of law and facts were involved in the complaint and in view of the decisions of this Commission such a case should be satisfactorily tried by the Civil Court and not by the various Consumer Forums constituted under the Act. As a result of the above findings, the State Commission disposed of the complaint accordingly without entering in the merits leaving the parties at liberty to approach the appropriate Court if it so desired.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come before this Commission in appeal.
3. MR. Rajiv Mehta, Counsel appearing for the appellant did not seriously dispute the finding of the State Commission that the off-set machine had been purchased by the complainant for a "commercial purpose "perhaps in view of a decision of this Commission rendered in O.P. No. 1 of 1988 titled M/s. Oswal Fine Arts v. M/s. H.M.T. Madras reported as I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC). That case also related to the purchase of an off-set printing machine which was found defective in several respects, Commission remarked :
"There is yet another insuperable obstacle disentitling the complainant to approach this National Commission with a claim for compensation, namely, that he is not a "Consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the machinery in question was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of its use in his Oswal Fine Arts, printing press which is a commercial establishment. A person who obtains goods for a commercial purpose is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression "Consumer" by the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i)".
However, he argued that the Opposite Party, i.e. the respondent did not render "service" after the machine had been installed, and therefore, in view of the definition of "service" given under the Act, the complainant could file the complaint as there was deficiency in the rendering of service by the Opposite Party. We feel that in the present case, the question of rendering of "service" does not arise as according to the complainant, the machine had manufacturing defects and it had to be sent back to Bombay for repairs. Therefore, it is not a case of deficiency in the rendering of "service" but of "defect" in the "goods" purchased by the complainant.
4. IT was further argued by the Counsel for the appellant that the respondent is guilty of ''unfair trade practice'', as according to the leaflet, the offset machine was supposed to give 6,000 impressions per hour, but it was only giving 1,900 impressions per day. Even if for arguments sake, it is held that the respondent is guilty of unfair trade practice, the complainant cannot file the present complaint because he is not a "Consumer" as defined in the Act. As noticed earlier, the off-set machine has been purchased by the complainant for a "commercial purpose". Accordingly, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same. We make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
