Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President; Sh. B.L. Anand, Member
CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.—Complainant
versus
SKYLAND INTERIORS (P) LTD. & OTHERS—Opposite Parties
C-216/92 –– Decided on 8.7.1992
Counsels for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Dalip Goswami, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: None.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'consumer' does not include purchases made for commercial purposes.
Headnote:
Consumer - Commercial Purchase - The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as the furniture was purchased for commercial purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a company, ordered furniture for commercial purposes. The respondents failed to supply the furniture as agreed and the quality of the supplied furniture was poor.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Act.
Issues: Whether the complainant falls within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the purpose of purchasing the furniture was for commercial use, and therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer'. The court distinguished a previous case where the complainant had purchased an item for earning her livelihood, which was not applicable to the present case.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed in limine on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Act.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President — Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a company incorporated under the Company Act, 1956 having its registered office and manufacturing units at C- 120, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 is carrying on the business of manufacturing of furtniture. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are its Director. The complainant placed an order with the respondent on 19.6.89 for purchase of the furniture of the value of about Rs. 1,40,000/-. An advance amount of Rs. 45,000/- was sent by them to the respondents vide cheque dated 20.6.89 for Rs. 25,000/- and cheque dated 25.10.89 for Rs. 20,000/-. The respondents it is alleged, agreed to supply the said furniture before 7.8.89. In spite of the repeated requests, the respondents failed to supply whole of the furniture and whatever furniture has been supplied by them, it is of poor quality. Consequently they have prayed that the respondent be directed to pay Rs. 1,86,275/- to the complainant for the loss suffered by them.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has placed an order for purchasing the furniture of the value of about Rs. 1,40,000/-. The amount spent on the furniture shows that it is a prosperous limited company. The purpose of purchasing the furniture can be nothing else than to promote the business. We are, therefore, of the view that it has been purchased for commercial purpose. Consequently, the complainant does not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’,
3. The learned Counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the Secretary, Consumer Guidance & Research Society of India v. M/s. B.P.L. India Ltd. I (1992) CPJ 140 (NC). In that case the aggrieved person had purchased the Photo Copier for the purpose of earning her livelihood and that the purchase had been made by taking loan from her relatives and well wishers. However, the copier developed defects. Consequently she filed the complaint against the respondent, which was accepted and relief was granted to her.
4. From a reading of the facts it is evident that case is distinguishable. In our view the ratio in that case is not applicable to the fact of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the complaint in limine on the ground that ‘the complainant’ does not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ as defined in the Act. A copy of the order be sent to the complainant.
Complaint dismissed in limine.
–
