A company that purchases goods for use in its guest house, which is not used for commercial purposes, and where the goods are covered by a warranty, is a 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member — This appeal has been out of the order dated 11th December, 1992 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras.

2. The complainant who is the respondent before this commission filed a complaint under Sections 17 and 18 read with Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Commission/ Tamil Nadu. The complainant had established a Guest House for its Directors including the Managing Director and other Executives of the Company at C-796, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The job of furnishing and erecting centrally air-conditioning system both the heating and cooling at the said premises was entrusted to the Appellants (opposite parties before the state commission) in response to their quotation of Rs. 9,68,000/- for establishing the central air-conditioning with cooling and heating, auto controls of 15 T Plant with cooling tower, GI sheet, Kirloskar motors and heavy quality pipe. Detailed specifications are given in the quotation. The second opposite party undertook the work and started fixing the system and units between December, 1988 and March, 1989. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties commenced from 14th April, 1989 trial runs of the cooling system of the air-conditioning plant but the system did not function. The cooling system of the air-conditioning plant when put to use did not function properly. The air-conditioning system had developed snags and did not work properly. There was leakage of water through ducting system. The service contractor of the opposite party had undertaken certain repair work but even thereafter the system did not work properly. The plant and the coiled fans fitted in the rooms were repaired. Even then the air-conditioning plant did not start functioning in a proper manner. One of the units did not function and the air conditioning units developed gas leakage and inspite of refilling of gas, the gas leakage continued to persist.

3. The complainant had further alleged that since the opposite parties did not take any action to rectify the defects in the plant and as the complainant was unable to make use of the plant, it approached M/s. Spectral Services Consultants Pvt. Ltd. with a request to inspect the air-conditioning plant and submit a report. In the report dated 28th April, 1991 submitted by the said consultants several defects are detailed, inter alia, that one of the compressors is a rebuilt one and F.C.Vs did not appear to be of a 2.5 TR as shown in the bill of first opposite party. The complainant brought the said report to the notice of the opposite parties but they did not take any action to rectify the defects or to have the rebuilt compressor changed from M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. The complainant further alleged that due to defective fabrication and improper construction of the cooling tower installed by the opposite parties, the cooling tower with MS tank and GI Louvers was blown off on 10.7.91 due to wind. Correspondence exchanged between the parties is then referred to in the complaint. The complainant submits that the opposite parties had undertaken to put up central air-conditioning system in functional order, but they have not carried out the said work in a proper manner since they used substandard and second hand compressors and other items and failed to rectify the defects and put the air-conditioning system in a function able condition. The opposite parties have taken several preliminary objections in their replies. It is pleaded that the goods in question are an asset of the complainant working for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(l)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party resides and is carrying on business at Delhi where the job contract was entered into and executed and no cause of action arose at Madras to give territorial jurisdiction to the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras to entertain the complaint