AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AS we entertained a doubt whether the complainant merited entertainment, we thought of hearing the complainant. Two representatives of the complainant appeared on 24.11.1990 and after some submission took an adjournment for further submissions. The complaint was adjourned to 11.12.1990 and on that day neither of them was present. We took up the case for disposal.
THE complainant is a firm engaged in the manufacturer and sale of plastic articles. THE first opposite party is a firm which manufactures machines and sells them. THE second opposite party is its manager. THE complainant agreed to purchase from the first opposite party a moulding machine including a semi automatic HP Motor and other accessories for Rs. 1,50,000/-. THE order to this effect was placed on 3.6.1989. THE machine was to be delivered on 20.7.1989. On 17.6.1989 an advance of Rs. 25,000/- was paid. Subsequently the agreement was modified and the opposite parties agreed to supply a fully automatic injection moulding machine. THE machine was brought to the complainant''s premises on 23.8.1989. Right from the beginning the machine was found to be defective and its performance unsatisfactory, even though the balance price was paid. THE opposite parties were requested orally and later by a lawyer''s notice to rectify this defects but they were unresponsive. Besides the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- the complainant had to spend large amounts on the machine to keep it going. THE complainant claims compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on account of the loss it has suffered, removal of the old machine and its replacement by a new one, payment of interest on Rs. 1,50,000/- etc. From the statements in the complaint and the records produced along with it there is no doubt that the purchase of the machine was for a commercial purpose. The complainant firm was itself registered, to manufacture plastic articles and deal in them with a view to make profits. The machine was purchased to make plastic articles for sale. It is therefore clear that the purchase was for a commercial purpose. That being so, the complainant is not consumer who is entitled to invoke, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Its grievances, if any, must be agitated in a suit or other appropriate proceedings. With these observations we reject the complaint. Complaint rejected.