SELEX OFFICE SYSTEM PVT LTD Vs. M K JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant against the order of the District Forum dated 9th February, 1990. Briefly, the facts are that the complainants purchased one plain paper copier model Selex 1150 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the defendant appellant on 8.11.1988. Guarantee of three months was given to the complainant. It is alleged that from the date of purchase the machine started giving trouble on account of which he had been suffering loss at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month in his business and that his business got ruined on that account. Consequently, he filed a complaint against defendant on 21st April, 1989 praying that the defendant be directed/ordered to refund Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and pay damages @ Rs.250/- per day from the date of sale of machine till the date of payment of the amount. The complaint was resisted by the defendants who controverted the allegations of the complainant.

(2.) During the pendency of the complaint, parties entered into a compromise in terms of which the defendant replaced the machine by a new machine at the value of Rs.65,000/ on 26th April, 1989. The complainant did not withdraw his complaint after replacement of the machine. The District Forum directed the defendant to pay Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment of the amount, to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. The defendant has come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission.

(3.) It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant did not fall within the definition of the 'consumer', as he purchased the machine for the purpose of his business. He submitted that the District Forum had, therefore, no jurisdiction to try the complaint. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the machine was not purchased for the purpose of business and therefore, the Forum had the jurisdiction to try the complaint. We have duly considered the arguments of the learned Counsel. We, however, agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant. The complainant in the complaint admitted that as the machine did not work properly, he had been suffering a loss of Rs.2,500/- per month. He further stated that he had not been able to earn his livelihood and meet other expenses of business like rent of the shop and salary of the establishment and that his business got ruined on account of that reason. From the reading of the aforesaid pleadings, it is clear that the machine was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business. Now he has taken a somersault that the machine was not purchased by the complainant for the purpose of business.