State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Sharma Office Printers vs Sahil Grafics on 29 March, 2016
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
Appeal No.1425/2013
M/s Sharma Offset Printers ... Appellant
Vs.
Sahil Graphics and another ... Respondents
BEFORE;
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. NEERJA SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:
SHRI MOHAN CHAUKSEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
MS. KALPANA VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2.
SHRI MANOJ SHAHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3.
ORDER
( PASSED ON 29.3.2016) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Smt. Neerja Singh, Member.
This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.13, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena, dismissing his complaint in CC No. 190/12.
2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that for the purpose of earning his livelihood, he purchased an Offset Printing Press machine for Rs.4,25,000/-, after taking a loan from the Central Bank of India. Including the packing charges, CTC Charges, transport and insurance, he paid an amount of : 2 : Rs.4,58,000/- on 27.09.11. The machine was transported from Faridabad to Morena and installed by the respondents in Morena. He was assured by respondents No. 1 and 2 that he would be provided one year free maintenance and 6 free services. He alleges that the machine developed faults within 3 months and stopped working properly. Though he contacted the respondents No. 1 and 2 a number of times, they did not repair the machine, which stopped working totally on 10.7.12. He, therefore, could not print his evening newspaper. He sent a legal notice to the respondents No.1 and 2 but they did not repair the machine.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 admit that the machine was sold for Rs.4,58,000/-. They state that the dispute lies within the jurisdiction of the Faridabad Forum. They further state that the machine had a 1 year warranty against manufacturing defects excluding rubber and plastic. Their engineer went to Morena on 12.11.11 and repaired the machine to the satisfaction of the appellant. He was advised to protect the machine against voltage fluctuation by installing a stabilizer. On 18.9.12 the engineer was sent who found the machine without a stabilizer. Some parts were replaced costing Rs.10,000/-, which the appellant did not pay. They deny any deficiency in service on their part. : 3 :
4. The District forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the machine had been purchased for commercial purpose.
5. Heard.
6. In our considered view, the appellant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)d of the Act. The definition of consumer excludes a person who obtains goods for any commercial purpose. The appellant publishes a newspaper by the name of 'Chambal Darpan' . The paper filed by him shows that he is the publisher and editor of the newspaper. It is not his case that he publishes the newspaper by means of self-employment. Nor has he averred that he is the sole person working in this newspaper. Any newspaper requires a large number of people to handle the various tasks like marketing, advertisement, distribution etc.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had taken a loan under a scheme for educated unemployed persons, which he states itself proves that he took the machine for earning his livelihood by means of self- employment. We are not impressed by the argument. First there is no pleading in the complaint that he earns his livelihood solely by self-employment. Secondly, merely by taking a loan under a : 4 : particular scheme does not establish that it has been taking for earning livelihood by self-employment.
8. Evidently, it is not a case where the appellant is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.
9. The appeal is thus dismissed summarily. The appellant is free to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to him in law claiming the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No order as to costs.
(JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA) (SMT. NEERJA SINGH)
PRESIDENT MEMBER