ABHINAV PUBLISHING INDIA PVT. LTD. vs GRAPHICS AND PRINTS

IN our Order dated 19th September, 1992 we had observed as under: "In the absence of any evidence having been produced by the Complainant to show that the business carried on by him is not a trading activity carried on a large scale for making profit, but is only one to enable him to make a living, we have to hold that the purchase of the machinery in question by the Complainant was for a commercial purpose and the Complainant cannot be regarded as consumer entitled to maintain any complaint under the Act. The Order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed."

SUBSEQUENTLY the Complainant submitted a revision/review petition in which he averred that the Respondent-Complainant had sent all the relevant details of Profit and Loss Account on the 24th/26th August, 1994 by speed post and that the same had been received in the Registry of this Commission. It was in this context that he had stated in his letter dated 13th September, 1994 that his case be considered on the basis of the papers on record. He had intended that the Commission should consider the material submitted by him on the 24th/26th August, 1994. He further submitted that due to the ignorance he had not submitted six copies of the documents to this Commission on 24th/26th August, 1994. Therefore, he submitted that the material submitted by him on the question whether he was running a business only for making a living may also be considered by this Commission. In the light of the submissions made by the Respondent-Complainant and to ensure that the parties are given proper hearing, it was decided to repost this case for considering the evidence submitted by the Respondent-Complainant on the question whether he had purchased the equipment for a commercial purpose.

WE have examined the Profit and Loss Account and the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31st March, 1993. During this accounting period the cost of goods sold is over Rs. 5.78 lakhs, income from DTPC services and printing Rs. 8.50 lakhs, gross profit Rs. 2.72 lakhs, net profit transferred to capital account Rs. 1.84 lakhs.

EQUIPMENT worth Rs. 4.52 lakhs was ordered in this case by the Complainant from the Appellant M/s. Abhinav Publishing Industries in 1989. The Profit and Loss Account for the period from 15th July, 1989 to 31st March, 1990 shows that the expenditure incurred was of the level of Rs. 1.00 lakh excluding depreciation and including depreciation Rs. 3.20 lakhs. The firm incurred a net trading loss of Rs. 2.86 lakhs. Its fixed assets were of the value of Rs. 4.40 lakhs on 31st March, 1990. The Profit and Loss Accounts and Balance Sheets for the intervening years from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1992 give more or less the same picture of its income and expenditure and its assets and liabilities. At the hearing of 30th November, 1994 the Counsel for the Appellant once again emphasized the submissions made in his appeal that the Respondent-Complainant was not only doing work of composition of texts for which he purchased the equipment but also other work of contract printing, quick type setting, graphic designing, post script, lazer outputting, quick offset printing etc., that M/s. Graphics and Prints was the associate firm owned by the same owners of the Upper India Publishing House and Digital Technologies, that in his cross-examination the Respondent-Complainant, Shri Rahul Kapoor, had admitted that prior to the purchase of this equipment, it was envisaged that it would do work of approximately Rs. 50,000/-per month, that the fixed expenses of his firm were nearly Rs. 27,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month, that for the use of equipment in question his firm was incurring building rent of Rs. 1200/- per month and staff salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. All these facts would clearly indicate that the Respondent''s claim that the equipment was used exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment is totally untenable. We are fully satisfied that he had purchased equipment for carrying on business or trading activity on large scale for making profit. It is immaterial whether he did make such a profit or ran into losses. We are therefore, satisfied that the purchase of machinery in question by the Respondent-Complainant was for commercial purpose and that the Complainant cannot be regarded as ''consumer'' entitled to maintain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The Order already passed by this Commission on 19th September, 1994 is reaffirmed and the Order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.