Scribd
Upload
68 views2 pages

Example: A Commercial Venture Engaged in Xeroxing Business Purchased One Xerox Machine, Is

The documents discuss whether companies purchasing goods for commercial use qualify as "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The National Commission held that a purchaser of machinery would be considered a consumer in respect to defects in the machine during the warranty period, even if purchased for business purposes. Similarly, another case found that a company was entitled to file a complaint under the Act for deficiencies in service during a one-year warranty period, regardless of the goods being used for commercial purposes. A third case reaffirmed prior judgments that a purchaser of a machine would be a consumer if defects arise within the warranty period, even if the machine was bought for commercial use.

Uploaded by

AnshuSingh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views2 pages

Example: A Commercial Venture Engaged in Xeroxing Business Purchased One Xerox Machine, Is

The documents discuss whether companies purchasing goods for commercial use qualify as "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The National Commission held that a purchaser of machinery would be considered a consumer in respect to defects in the machine during the warranty period, even if purchased for business purposes. Similarly, another case found that a company was entitled to file a complaint under the Act for deficiencies in service during a one-year warranty period, regardless of the goods being used for commercial purposes. A third case reaffirmed prior judgments that a purchaser of a machine would be a consumer if defects arise within the warranty period, even if the machine was bought for commercial use.

Uploaded by

AnshuSingh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SUMMARY

A Company will be a consumer wherein if it buys office machineries life fax, printers & air
conditioners because the company although 'consumes' that fax, printers & air conditioners, but
they are purchased not for resale and although fax, printers aid in its commercial activity but their
commercial activity has nothing to do with the consumption of that fax, printers & air conditioners.
Example: A commercial venture engaged in xeroxing business purchased one xerox machine, is
not a consumer within the meaning of this Act, for the xerox machine purchased and nature of
business activity being carried out are closely merged to each other. Similarly, a commercial
venture engaged in some other business activity happens to purchase one xerox machine for office
purposes, is a consumer within the meaning of this Act, for his nature of commercial activity being
carried out is distinct from nature of goods / services consumed. At the same time, a man
purchasing a xerox machine for earning his livelihood, is still a consumer within the meaning of
this Act of 1986.1

Super Computer Centre V. Globiz Investment Pvt. Ltd. III (2006) CPJ 265 (NC)

The complainant, a company, had purchased computer system along with related accessories from
the opposite party. The intellifax machine, which was supplied with the computer, was not giving
performance up to the mark and the same was defective. When the dispute went to the redressal
forum under the COPRA, the opposite party contended that the complainant was not a consumer
as the computer and the machine were purchased by the company for business purpose i.e. for
commercial purpose. However, the defect in the machine was intimated to the opposite party
within the warranty period. The National Commission held that the purchaser of the
machinery would certainly be a consumer in respect of defect in machine during period of
warranty.

Birla Technologies Limited v. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited

By its order dated 4.3.2004, the State Commission accepted the appellant's preliminary objection
and dismissed the complaint. The respondent complainant, therefore filed First Appeal No.218 of
2004 before the National Commission. By its order dated 17.12.2009, which is impugned here, the

1
https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/commercial-purposes-as-contemplated-under-the-scheme-of-
consumer-protection-act-of-1986-html
National Commission reversed the order of the State Commission and held that the "goods"
purchased by the respondent from the appellant were being used by the respondent for a
commercial purpose and, therefore, the respondent was not a "consumer" within the meaning
of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. However, the National Commission further held that
notwithstanding such findings, the respondent was entitled to maintain a complaint under the
Act with respect to the deficiency in service during one-year warranty period with respect to
the said goods relying on Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

Dr. Vijai Prakash Goyal Petitioner v. The Network Limited

Respondent1998-CPJ-1-31-NC the revision was filed against the order dated 15.7.1998 of
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow allowing appeal against the
majority judgment dated 16.11.1996 of a District Forum and dismissing complaint filed by the
petitioner. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a consumer.
Petitioner filed complaint, inter alia, alleging that he along with his wife has been running a
maternity home at 10/60, Katar Madari Khan, Agra. Petitioner placed an order on 22.2.1994 for
supply of Ultrasound Scanner Model 212 on the respondent opposite party. Respondent supplied
the machine on 31.3.1994. Warranty was of one year. It was alleged that after installation, the
machine went out of order. Engineer deputed by the respondent on checking found that the
machine needed to be replaced, it being defective. Respondent had not replaced/repaired the
machine despite repeated requests including service of legal notice dated 5/8.12.1994 by the
petitioner. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. Purchase of Ultrasound
Scanner model 212 by the petitioner was not denied. However, it was pleaded that petitioner is not
a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said notice dated 5/8.12.1994 which
was replied to by the respondent was got served through Counsel by the petitioner during the
warranty period of one year which was to expire on 17.4.1995 itself. Reiterating its earlier
judgments in Jay Kay Puri Engineers and Others v. Mohan Breiveries and Distilleries, I
(1998) CPJ 38 (NC) and many other decisions, the National Commission held that purchaser of a
machine would be a consumer if the defect in machine develops within warranty period even
though the machine was purchased for commercial purpose.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy