ORDER
J.K. Mehra, Member
1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 8.7.1997 passed in Appeal No. 53 of 1997 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh. The case of the complainant-petitioner is that he had purchased a flour mill machinery for a small flour mill and had paid the amounts indicated in the complaint. Apart from the cost of the machines, he had also paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- In consideration whereof the respondent who supplied the machinery was to undertake installation of the machinery at the premises of the complainant-petitioner.
2. The matter was heard by the District Forum and it came to the conclusion that the machinery having been purchased for commercial purpose and that the complainant having not pleaded that it was exclusively for self-employment for earning his livelihood, the case could not be treated to be a consumer dispute as the complainant could not be covered by the definition of the term ‘consumer’. On appeal, the State Commission agreed with the District Forum.
3. Having heard the Counsel, we are of the view that the entire controversy is in two parts. One is, sale of goods in respect whereof we are in agreement with the District Forum as well as the State Commission, for the reason that the complainant had not pleaded that such purchase was for his self-employment and for earning his livelihood. The other part is that the contract was clearly a service contract for which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was charged, receipt whereof is not in dispute, It is also not in dispute that nothing was done by the respondent in respect of installation and the complainant, was put to additional expenditure, the complainant had to engage another agency for the purpose of installation who charged the complainant a total sum of Rs. 39,000/-, i.c. Rs. 14,000/- more than what the respondent had agreed to charge for rendering such services. The FORA below have fallen into I error in not considering this part of the contract regarding rendition of service. There is no distinction between commercial and noncommercial uses for which services are rendered or to be rendered. There is clearly a deficiency in service in respect thereof, for which we find that the petitioner-complainant is entitled to not only refund of Rs. 25,000/- but also an additional amount of Rs. 14,000/- which is the extra expenditure to which the complainant-petitioner was put. The complainant would be entitled to a total of Rs. 39,000/- together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the purchase till the date of payment. The impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. There is no order as to costs.