AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS petition is by the complainant. Its complaint was for alleged deficiency in service in supply of Magnetic Crack Detector Model Unimech UN 1000 which according to the complainant was defective and faulty. Complainant, therefore, filed complaint for replacement of the machine or for refund of the price. District Forum allowed the complaint and gave direction to the respondent-opposite party to remove the defects within a certain period.
IT is the complainant who was dissatisfied by its order and that it went in appeal before the State Commission. Its appeal was dismissed by the impugned order of the State Commission where the State Commission held that there was no consumer dispute involved in the case. Admittedly, there was no warranty given by the respondent-opposite party for providing any service for correction of any defector fault in the machinery so supplied. The machine has not been purchased for earning livelihood of the complainant. It was acquired for commercial purpose. State Commission was right in its view that there could not be any consumer disputes in the circumstances of the case. We do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.