Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna, Eradi, President—The petitioner herein was the Complainant in the Complaint No. 87/93-94 on the file of the District Forum, Ratlam in Madhya Pradesh. The grievance with which the Petitioner herein approached the District Forum was that, he had placed an order with the respondent herein M/s. Kumar Iron Works who is a wholesale dealer in hardware fittings for the supply of certain hardware items which were to be used by the complainant in certain buildings for the fixing of steel doors hinges etc. which work had been taken on contract by the Revision Petitioner. But the items supplied to the Revision Petitioner by the respondent did not conform to the specifications mentioned in the order placed with him and were, therefore, unsuitable for being used in his contract work. Repeated requests made by the Revision Petitioner to the respondent to replace those goods with the goods complying with the specifications mentioned in the order placed with the respondent yielded no results and hence he approached the District Forum praying for the award of compensation as against the respondent for the inconvenience, harassment and the loss caused to the Revision Petitioner by reason of the supply of defective goods effected by the respondent.

2. The District Forum dismissed the complaint taking the view that the order for purchase of goods by the Petitioner was for a commercial purpose and hence he was not competent to maintain a complaint before the Consumer Forum. On appeal to the State Commission, there was no discussion at all by the State Commission on the said question as to whether the order for the purchase of goods by the petitioner herein was intended to meet a commercial purpose or whether the petitioner could be regarded as a consumer, who was carrying on only a small business by way of self-employment to earn his livelihood. The State Commission took the view that the grievance put forward by the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of the type of the grievance enumerated in the definition of the expression ‘complaint’ contained in the Consumer Protection Act. This reason does not appeal to us as correct since the specific case put forward by the complainant in the complaint was that the goods supplied did not conform to the specifications mentioned in the order and, were therefore, unsuitable for the purpose for which he had wanted to use them. This, in effect, constituted a pleading that the goods were defective inasmuch as they did not conform to the description which the complainant had given in the order placed with the respondent and were, therefore, unsuitable for the purpose for which they had been intended to be purchased. Hence, in our opinion, the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission on the aforesaid limited ground was not correct.

3. However, the question still remains as to whether the complainant can be entitled to be regarded as consumer satisfying the definition contained in the Act. The answer to this will necessarily depend upon whether the intended purchase of the goods by the complainant was either for resale or for commercial purpose or whether the complainant had intended to use those goods only for carrying on a small business in which he was engaged for the purpose of eking out his livelihood by way of self-employment. There is no satisfactory discussion of any evidence relating to this matter in the order passed by the District Forum also. We, therefore, consider it necessary to remand this case to District Forum for fresh determination on the aforesaid question in the light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Commission, after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce additional evidence, oral as well as documentary, limited to the question as to the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner herein and whether it is by way of selfemployment or whether it is a business carried on for making profit on a large scale. The or