National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Biilagi Sugar Mill Ltd., vs M/S. Kessels Engineering Works (P) Ltd. on 20 April, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 46 OF 2010 Biilagi Sugar Mill Ltd., Badagandi 587 116 Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District, Karnataka State Represented by its Executive Vice President, Shri Khaja Abdul Aziz ........ Complainant Vs. M/s. kessels Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 1008, Pragati Tower, Rajendera Place New Delhi 110 008 Represented by its Chairman Shri Bharat Sawhney And Chief Executive Rajesh Sawhney Opposite Party BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER For the Complainants : Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advocate For Mr. G.V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Pronounced on : 20th April, 2010 ORDER
PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, MEMBER Heard Counsel for the complainant.
The case of the complainant is that it has a sugar mill for which a Turbine (T.G. Set) was required. Accordingly, the complainant purchased a Turbine (T.G. Set) from the OP vide agreement dated 28.12.2001. The Turbine (T.G. Set) was commissioned in January, 2006 and during the trial session, complainants production was badly affected due to frequent stoppages of the Turbine (T.G. Set). The OP failed to rectify the defects as pointed out by the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,98,693/- for replacement of various parts on the advice of the OP. The OP did not bother to improve the performance of the Turbine (T.G. Set).
The complainant was forced to entrust the refurbishing work of the Turbine (T.G. Set) to M/s. Pentagon Turbo Engineers (P) Ltd., Bangalore and M/s. SRDC Engineering Solutions, Hyderabad and paid a sum of Rs.24.02 lakhs to them. The complainant was forced to replace the Turbine (T.G. Set) for which the order was placed with M/s. Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd., Bangalore for an amount of Rs.250 lakhs. The complainant sold the Turbine (old T.G. Set) to M/s. Siston India Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 50,57,976/-. According to the complainant, due to frequent stoppage, huge cost of refurbishing and replacement of T.G. Set, the complainant incurred huge losses. The complainant claimed to be a consumer on the basis of agreement dated 28.12.2001 by which OP had undertaken to guarantee the performance of the T.G. Set, but had failed to ensure optimum performance on account of which, the OP was deficient in rendering the goods and services, as promised by them.
From the facts narrated in the complaint, it is clear that the Turbine (T.G. Set) in question had been purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and, purchase for commercial purpose is excluded under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act. Likewise, the services of the warranty for commercial purpose are also excluded for commercial purpose under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) w.e.f. 15.3.2003. A Division Bench of this Commission to which one of us (R.K. Batta, J) was a party has after scrutiny of a large number of judgements, which actually pertain to the pre-amendment period i.e. before 15.3.2003, in Meera Industries Vs. Modern Constructions (R.P. No. 1765 of 2007 decided on 22.5.09) wherein it was held :
in view of the above, we are of the opinion that whether a `customer buys goods for commercial purpose and avails of services attached to the goods in the nature of warranty, he cannot be considered to be a consumer even for the purpose of services during the warranty period in view of the amendment to Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act, which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. In view of this, the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer with reference to the services attached to the warranty and the complaint is not maintainable.
The view taken in Meera Industries Vs. Modern Constructions (Supra) has been approved by full bench of this Commission in the case of Sanjay D. Ghodawat Vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd. (CC No.155 of 2008); M/s. Radhe Enterprise Vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (CC No.38 of 2009); and M/s. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Birla Technologist Ltd.(F.A. No. 218 of 2004 decided on 17.12.2009) to which one of us (R.K. Batta, J) was a party.
In view of the above, we do not find that the complainant qualifies to be a consumer within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. In view of this, the complaint cannot be entertained and is hereby dismissed. The complainant is free to seek remedy available to it in accordance with law.
..
(K.S. GUPTA, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(R.K. BATTA, J) MEMBER k