PROTECK MACHINERY PVT. LTD. Vs. AMBIKA PRINTER AND PUBLICATIONS THROUGH SATISH SHIVAJI FAFALE
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2013-7-7
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 19,2013

Proteck Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Ambika Printer And Publications Through Satish Shivaji Fafale Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.KHANZODE,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)THIS appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.108 of 2007, Shree Ambika Printers and Publications v. M/s. Proteck Machinery Pvt. Ltd. It was a consumer complaint relating to defective goods/machinery and upholding the contention of the Complainant M/s. Shree Ambika Printers and Publications, a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the Firm for the sake of brevity), Opponent M/s. Proteck Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sake of brevity) was directed to pay to the Firm an amount of Rs.11,66,050 together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from 25.10.2004 besides an amount of Rs.50,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the Company preferred this appeal.
(2.)ADMITTEDLY , the Firm had purchased the machinery from the Company for its business of printing inter alia including printing of daily newspapers. For that purpose, they purchased a Proteck Programmable Compensating Counter Stacker worth Rs.15,72,646 from the Company on 25.10.2004. It is the grievance of the Firm that after installation of the said machinery, it was found defective. Problems relating to the machinery referred to the Company remained unsolved and, therefore, ultimately consumer complaint was filed.
(3.)HEARD both the parties at length.
Company besides stating that the machine was not defective submitted that the Firm is also not a consumer within the meaning of Section -2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) since the machine was purchased for commercial purpose. Referring to this aspect, the Firm failed to meet the objection satisfactorily.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.