REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD & ORS Vs. PIONEER TYPEWRITER CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Pioneer Typewriter Company, Nagpur, the complainant purchased from M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd., opposite party No.1, a Remington (Canon) Paper Copier Machine for Rs. 1,43,000/- which was installed at its premises in the second week of February, 1991. He found that the CDS drum in the machine was not new; was in fact worn out.

(2.) The opposite party No.1 then took away the machine from the complainant's office and on 22.1.91 demonstrated to the complainant that a new CDS drum has been replaced in place of the old one. At that time some parts were found missing and it was promised by the opposite party No. 1 that these parts will be supplied later on. The machine did not give satisfactory services and therefore, the complainant asked the supplier to replace it by a new one. The State Commission, Maharashtra, after going through the facts of this case held that the complainant was a consumer as he had purchased this machine for self-employment after obtaining a loan from the State Bank of India at the rate of 18% interest per annum. The State Commission also held that the complainant is not engaged in a large-scale profit making business; he, in fact, was running a small venture to earn a livelihood. The opposite party had contended that this machine was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and hence his complaint is not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission has held that the opposite parties have completely failed to demonstrate that the complainant had purchased this machine for commercial purpose. Merely because tine firm of the complainant is a partnership firm does not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that they are engaged in a commercial purpose. The State Commission, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed M/s. Ramington Rand of India Ltd., at Nagpur, opposite party No. 1 and at Calcutta, opposite party No. 2 to replace the defective machine by a new machine of the Model 4500 (Canon) 270 free from any defect and also pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation. They further directed that interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,42,000/- may be paid from May, 1991 till the delivery of the new machine.

(3.) We have gone through this case and have heard the learned Counsel for M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd., the appellant herein as well as the Pioneer Typewriter Company, the complainant before the State Commission. We find that the firm of the complainant is indeed a small one and just because it is a partnership firm, it cannot be concluded that they are engaged in a large-scale commercial venture. A formal partnership can always be formed to earn livelihood by the partners. In this case the added fact that the firm purchased this machine after obtaining loan from the Bank suggests that they did so to run a small venture to earn a livelihood. The fact that the machine supplied was defective has been proved conclusively. Also the fact that the complainant suffered the losses due to defective machine is established. We, therefore, do not see any force in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.