AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint, under Section 12 r/w Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought the return of the ''CR Tronic Phototype Setting System'' after rectification of the defects or to refund a sum of Rs. 3,99,205/- and has also sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- from the Opposite Party.
IT is the case of the complainant that he purchased one ''CR Tronic Phototype Setting System'' (hereinafter referred to Setting System) from the Opposite Party in the year 1983 at a cost of 18,655 (Sterling Pounds Eighteen thousand six hundred and fifty-five only). The said Setting System completely broke down in the month of September 1988. So the complainant handed over the said Setting System to the Opposite Party for its repairs to the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party did not return the said Setting System after its repairs, so the complainant sought the reliefs from the Opposite Party as narrated above. The Opposite Party filed its version, admitted the fact of sale of the said Setting System in favour of the complainant in the year 1983, but it denied the fact that the said Setting System was handed over to it by the complainant for its rectification in the month of September, 1986.
The Opposite Party further averred that the purchase of the Setting System was for ''commercial'' purpose and so the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It also further averred that the complaint was barred by time.
WE heard the learned Counsel for the complainant regarding the maintainability of the complaint. It is clear from the averments contained in the complaint that the said Setting System was purchased in the year 1983, it broke down in the month of Sept., 1988 and the said System was handed over to the Opposite Party in the month of September 1988 for its rectification.
THIS complaint came to be filed on 28.12.92. THIS is admittedly, beyond the period of limitation. So on this basis, the complaint is untenable as barred by time. Another aspect, that is to be considered, is that this Setting System was purchased at the cost of 18,655. This purchase is admitted for ''commercial'' purpose. There is no material on record to show that the said Setting System was purchased by the complainant for his ''self-employment'' with a view to earn his livelihood. The complainant''s firm is a Partnership Firm and one of the partners, Mr. H. Krishnan, has filed the affidavit and averred that he was the Managing Director of the Complainant''s firm. Therefore, there is no material to show that this System was purchased for ''self-employment'' with a view to earn livelihood.
HAVING regard to these facts, it is clear that the Setting System was purchased for commercial purpose and in that view the complainant cannot be classified as ''consumer'' under the provisions of the C.P. Act. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.