The central legal point established in the judgment is that a complainant purchasing goods for commercial purposes may not be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—This appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the complainant, M/s. Nankana Sahib Transport Company could not be held to be consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act to claim compensation in respect of chassis purchased from the opposite parties, which is of 1994 Model and was stated to be of 1995 Model. After purchase of the chassis, the complainant got a body of bus constructed thereon and it was at the time of registration of the bus with the Transport Authorities that it came to light that the vehicle was of 1994 Model although in die Invoice, it was stated to be of 1995 Model. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation in the complaint filed before the District Forum against the dealer - opposite party No. 1 and manufacturer - opposite party No. 2. After inviting version of the opposite parties and the evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint on July 1, 1996 giving direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 48,694.80 to the complainant within a period of three months from the receipt of this order and the aforesaid order has been challenged by the opposite parties in this appeal.

2. The complaint itself shows that the complainant is a Private Limited Company and had purchased the chassis and constructed a bus thereon. In the written statement, preliminary objection was taken that the complaint was not maintainable in the eyes of law as its purview does not come under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the vehicle was purchased by the Company for their business purposes, the Company could not approach the District Forum for the redressal of defect found in the goods sold. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines consumer as under :

(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 such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed or with the approval of the first mentioned person."

3. It is not a case of hiring service of the opposite parties for consideration and deficiency in rendering such service. Present is a simple case of sale of a vehicle, which was found to be of old Model and sold as a new Model i.e. a defect being pointed out in the vehicle. Since the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as defined under the Act. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground without going into the merits of the case.

4. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum granting compensation is set aside. The complaint is dismissed. The complainant is left to seek his remedy in the Civil Court, if so advised. There will be no order as of costs in this appeal.

Appeal allowed.