Mr. Justice V.P. Gupta, President—The complainant has filed this complaint on the allegation that .the complainant in the Secretary of a Soap Factory known as the Gopal Soap Factory Mehtpur, Distt. has. It is alleged that soap is manufactured in this factory by obtaining Palm Fatty Oil from Himachal Pradesh Small Industries Export Corporation Ltd. Shimla.

2. The allegations are that Palm Fatty Oil was being procured by the complainant for manufacturing of soap on payment of price. The complainant previously was getting the Palm Fatty Oil supplied from the Respondent on payment of cost price plus 4% CST plus handling charges plus freight etc. 3% service charges were also being charged by the Respondent from the complainant.

3. It is further alleged that as against the demand of the complainant, 5% advance money was demand from the complainant and this advance was adjusted at the time of supply of the oil. It is also alleged that upon the asking of respondent, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with the Respondent against the demand of 30 tonnes of Fatty Oils. The complainant alleges that after some time the complainant came to know that Palm Fatty Oil in other States was being supplied at lesser rates. He made detailed enquiries from various persons and departments regarding the difference of prices and finally it was revealed to the complainant that the service charges were charged from the complainant at the rate of 10% instead of 3% as shown in the books of the respondent.

4. The complainant thus has claimed that the service charges should be claimed at 3% and that the excess service charges of Rs. 7% realised from the complainant be returned to him with 18% per annum interest.

5. The complainant also claims the differences of excess charges. By calculation, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 4,12,173.85 from the respondent, the details of which have been given in the complaint.

6. Notices of the complaint were issued to the Respondent. In reply to the complaint besides other legal and factual objections the respondent has raised preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and adjudicate this complaint.

7. We considered it proper to decide the objection regarding jurisdiction at a preliminary stage.

8. We have heard Sh. M.V. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the complainant. Sh. Sharma contends that this Commission has jurisdiction to try this complaint because the complainant falls within the definition of ‘consumer’ in view of Section 2(d)(ii). His contention is that the complainant has hired the services of the respondent for consideration and hence the complaint can be entertained.

9. From the respondents side it is contended that according to the allegations the complainant buys Palm Fatty Oil for manufacturing of soap and the complainant is the Secretary of Gopal Soap Factory, Mehatpur which is a soap manufacturing Unit for commercial purposes. He contends that the purchase of any goods for any commercial purposes is specifically excluded and such a person is not included within the definition of "Consumer" as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d)(i).

10. We have considered the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the allegation of the complaint.

11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has been purchasing Palm Fatty Oil from the respondent for the purpose of manufacturing of soap and that he is running a soap factory. In other words, the Palm Fatty Oil is being purchased by complainant for commercial purposes.

12. 2(1)(d) "Consumer" means any person who:—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of s