SUPER COMPUTER CENTRE Vs. GLOBIZ INVESTMENT PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party. Respondent/complainant purchased computer system along with related accessories from the petitioner for Rs. 1,42,898 vide invoice No. 88625 on 25.6.1997. In the complaint respondent alleged that Intellifax 1450 MC machine supplied with the computer was not giving performance upto the mark as represented and the machine supplied was defective. In written verison the petitioner alleged that respondent is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act (for short the 'Act'). It was denied that machine in question was defective or not giving performance upto the mark as alleged. District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 6.7.2001 with direction to the petitioner to refund amount of Rs. 41,000 being the cost of machine in question with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 25.6.1997. Dis-satisfied with this order, the petitioner filed appeal which was partly accepted by substituting the interest with a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,000 by the State Commission by the order dated 13.2.2006. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) ONLY submission advanced by Mr. K.K. Bhatia for petitioner is that the computer with accessories was purchased by the respondent, a company for commercial purpose and, therefore, respondent is not a 'consumer' under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act. Copy of complaint filed by the respondent is at pages 23-24. Bare reading thereof would show that the computer and accessories carried a warranty of one year and petitioner was intimated of the defect in the machine in question within that warranty period through the letter dated 22.9.1997 by the respondent. Order of District Forum notices that copy of this letter along with postal receipt were filed by the respondent by way of evidence. In the decision in Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr., I (1996) CPJ 324 (NC), which is being followed in subsequent decisions by this Commission, the Commission held that the purchaser of machinery will certainly be a consumer in respect of defect in machinery during the period of warranty. Since defect in machine in question was brought to the notice of petitioner within three months' period of purchase the respondent will be a 'consumer' even though the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. Revision petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. Revision Petition dismissed.