(1.) THE complainant, who is running a manufacturing business, as welldoing business in export, has filed the complaint, alleging manufacturing defect in the machineries supplied by the opposite parties, as well as deficiency, for the following reliefs:
(a) to repay the complainant the amount of Rs. 17,20,850 received by them from the complainant towards cost of the machinery;
(b) to remove the defective machine supplied and erected by the opposite party and lying in the factory premises of the complainant at Vandaloor, Chennai and their Head Office, at Medavakkam, Chennai; and
(c) Refund the sum of Rs. 66,10,000 being the additional expenses/ loss incurred by the complainant;
(d) Pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 to the complainant being compensation for the damages, loss of Goodwill and mental agony suffered by them;
(e) and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit.
(2.) BY going through the averments in the complaint, the Registry felt, the complaint is not maintainable, because of the fact, the complainant is not a consumer, since the matter relates to commercial activities. Therefore a return was made on 16.9.2000, to answer the query, giving two weeks, which was represented on 20.9.2000, with endorsement: The complainant is a small scale industry, and the machines are purchased for the purpose of the business of the company, which is the source of livelihood. Copies of SSI certificates are enclosed. Complied with represented. Not incorporating any averments, in the complaint, as if the complainant is doing business as self employment. Thus, the Registry felt, the query was not properly answered, resulting placing of the papers before the Commission, for an appropriate order, regarding the maintainability of the complaint.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the complainant, perused the records and documents filed.
In order to appreciate, whether the complainant is a consumer, and whether the case would come within the meaning of commercial purpose, which is excluded from the definition of the consumer, at present, we have to see the pleadings alone, which should be the criterion. As indicated above, it is not the case of the complainant, anywhere in the body, that the complainant is self employed, whereas the entire reading would indicate, that the complainant is employing many persons, as employer, for the purpose of business, aiming and targeting only for profits by exporting the end product. Therefore, by going through the averments very carefully, we are of the considered opinion, the complainant will not come within the meaning of consumer, or the deficiency of service alleged, will not come within the definition also, and our reasons in detail as follows, based upon pleadings:;