Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is the owner of 'Hotel Vikram’ situated at Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant purchased one oil fired hot water Boiler and one Mixing Tank from the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 73.049.46p and got the same installed at the hotel in the month of December 1988. However, out of the total amount, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 67,499.46P and retained the balance amount with it.

2. It is alleged that the boiler was not functioning properly and inspite of repeated requests the respondent failed to rectify the defects. Consequently, it is prayed that the respondent be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 67,499.46p alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 1.1.1989 to the date of payment of the amount and pay damages amounting to Rs. 5 lacs on account of loss in business and reputation suffered by it.

3. The petition has been contested by the respondent. It is inter-alia pleaded by the respondent that the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case as the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. In the first instance, the arguments were heard from the parties on this preliminary point.

4. It is admitted in the complaint by the complainant that it is the owner of the hotel and it purchased the oil fired hot water Boiler and Mixing Tank for the purpose of hotel business and got that installed in the hotel. The complainant has not only asked for refund of the price but has also requested that in view of loss of business, it is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 5 lacs from the respondent. It is thus established beyond a shadow of doubt that the complainant purchased the Boiler etc. for commercial purpose. It is provided in the definition of the word ‘consumer’ as given in Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, that the person who purchases goods for any commercial purpose, is not a consumer Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and is not entitled to file the present complaint. In the aforesaid view, we are supported by the observations of this Commission in Travels & Trades Pvt. Ltd. v: Swaraj Mazda Ltd. & Others (Case No. C-97/90 decided on 9.11.90) and M/s. R.K.Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. v. Smt. Madhu Chawla (Case No. A-31/ 90 decided on l3.11.90).

5. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore, he is not entitled to file the petition under the Consumer Protection Act. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

Complaint dismissed.