Mr. Justice B.S. Yadav, Member—This is an appeal against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras by which it ordered the present appellant, Sterling Computers Ltd., which was opposite party in the complaint filed by the present respondent. P. Raman Kutty to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,86,461/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum from 17th June, 1992 till repayment and take back the machinery supplied. The opposite party was also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party has come before this Commission by way of this appeal.

2. The complainant who is said to be a leading contractor evidenced interest in the purchase of a personal computer so that it would be advantageous to his profession which involves precision designs, specifications and details of execution. He placed order with the opposite party for one SIVA PC/AT-386 system and paid a sum of Rs. 1,86,461/- under two cheques. The computer was agreed to be delivered by 29th June, 1992. The opposite party failed to deliver it within the time. In reply to the inquiries made by the complainant, he received evasive replies from the opposite party. The complainant issued a legal notice on 1st July, 1992 calling upon the opposite party to refund the amount with interest at 24% per annum. After receipt of the notice the opposite party delivered the computer to the complainant on 23rd July, 1992 which was not accompanied by software or accessories. Consequently, the system could not be commissioned and operated. Thereupon the complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission for refund of the amount with interest at 24% per annum. He also prayed for a compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. While admitting the placing of the order for the computer system by the complainant it pleaded that delay in the supply of the system was due to non availability of certain essential components which go into the manufacture of AT-386 colour kit and the Business Grips Soft-ware was not available. It was averred that the delay was explained and the complainant was satisfied. The opposite party agreed to compensate the complainant by supplying one K.V.A. Krycard stabiliser worth about Rs. 6,000/-. The computer hardware and stabiliser was delivered to the complainant on 23rd July, 1992 and the colour kit on 9th December, 1992 and they were accepted by the complainant without any protest. According to the opposite party the complainant cannot have any grievance.

4. Before the State Commission the opposite party raised the contention that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) as the computer system has been purchased for a commercial purpose. It was brought on record that the complainant was a contractor registered with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Highways Department and other Government and quasi Government departments. However, on behalf of the complainant it was urged that he is also a consultant contractor by profession which involve preparation of precision designs and specifications and he purchased the personal computer system only for the purpose of his profession. The State Commission held that profession cannot be equated with commerce and since the complainant had purchased the computer system for his professional work, it cannot be said that he had purchased the system for a commercial purpose. Accordingly the State Commission held that the complainant was a consumer as defined in the Act. The State Commission further held that even if it is assumed that the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, he will certainly be a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Act in respect of the service rendered or to be rendered by the opposite