Case: STEREOCRAFT Vs. MONOTYPE INDIA LTD., VOHRA HOUSE, NEW DELHI

2. In May, 1984, the appellant imported phototype-setting machine from West Germany after opening a letter of credit in favour of the manufacturer M/s. H. Berthold, AG, Berlin. The respondent M/s. Monotype India Ltd., New Delhi is the agent and distributor of the manufacturing German Company in India. The machine was installed at the complainants business premises on 17-8-1984. But soon thereafter, it was found to be defective in many respects which were brought to the notice of the respondent who attended to the complaints between 17-8-84 and 23-3-87, but the machinery remained defective and could work properly only for 152 hours as against the expected run of 12500 hours.3. Consequently, the appellant filed a claim petition before the National Commission for a sum of ` 11,22,000/- for the loss suffered by them on account of the failure of the respondent to supply a defect-free machine and to service and maintain the same in proper working condition.4. The claim was dismissed by the Commission on the ground that the machine was purchased by the appellant for its printing press business and since the purchase was for a commercial purpose, the appellant could not be treated as consumer within the meaning of the definition of that expression contained in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Commission also found that the claim of the appellant was barred by limitation.

Court's reasoning:
6. We are not prepared to accept the contention advanced by the appellant. From the documents filed before the Commission, it appears that the manufacturer had inter alia, agreed, as part of the sale transaction7. After installation of the machinery, in the business premises of the appellant, it was found to be defective. The defects were reported to the respondent as part of the sale transaction and in terms of clauses 7, 8, 10 and 14 quoted above, the respondent rendered the services to the appellant. But even then, as the appellant says, the machinery could not work properly. Since the service was rendered by the respondent was in compliance of clauses 7 and 8 of the sale transaction between the appellant and the manufacturer, it could not be said that the appellant had hired the services of respondent for consideration. Consequently, the appellant cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of sub-clause (ii) of clause (d)(1) of Section 2 of the Act. The appellant on his own showing had worked the machinery for about three years from 17-8-84 when it was installed at its premises upto at least 23-3-1987. After having worked the machinery for such a long period, the appellant could not legally claim the replacement of the machinery or compensation, for the reason that the machinery had not run for 12500 hours which was the least run expected by the appellant.