The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely complaints, the principle of sub-judice matters, and the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This complaint by M/s. Oswal Fine Arts arises out of the supply by the respondent M/s. H.M.T., Madras of an offset printing machine to the complainant in the year 1979. The grievance of the complainant is that the machine so supplied to him was defective in several respects and that in spite of repeated requests made by him to the respondent company, the defects were not set right to his satisfaction with the consequence that he was put to serious loss and hardship. On this ground, he has claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 crore 69 lakhs and odd.

2. After hearing Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent we have come to the conclusion that this complaint has to be rejected on the following preliminary grounds:—

(i) First and the foremost, the complaint is a highly belated one. inasmuch as the purchase of the machine took place in the year 1979. Any claim for damages or compensation arising out of the said contract had become time-barred under the Law of Limitation long prior to the coming into force of the Consumer Protection Act. In such a case, this Commission will not entertain such a stale claim.

(ii) Another formidable objection to the maintainability of this claim is that the matter is sub-judice before the Madras High Court on its original side where the complainant has instituted a suit for damages against the respondent based on the identical cause of action. There is also a cross suit filed by the respondent company in the city Civil Court at Bangalore claiming certain reliefs against the Complainant in respect of the same transaction. When the matter is, thus, sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Courts of the land. this Commission cannot and will not entertain any claim for compensation in respect of the identical subject-matter.

(iii) There is yet another insuperable obstacle disentitling the complainant to approach this National Commission with a claim for compensation, namely, that he is not a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Admittedly, the machinery in question was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of its use in his Oswal Fine Arts printing press which is a commercial establishment. A person who obtains goods for a commercial purpose is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression "consumer" by the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i).

3. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that this complaint is not maintainable by the petitioner before this National Commission and we dismiss it on the said limited ground. The parties will bear their respective costs.

Complaint dismissed.