Purchasing goods or services for business purposes may not qualify an entity as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, President—This complaint is for payment of compensation on the ground that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2. The complainant placed orders to purchase telephone system called as NITSUKO-ENKAY MODEL NO. NICE 288. Pursuant to that order, the case of the O.Ps. is that, the telephone of the said model was installed in the premises belonging to the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant is an industry engaged in the manufacture of woven lable and thread, and the installation of telephone of the above said model is also for the purpose of business.

On these facts, the learned Counsel appearing for the O.Ps. contended, the complainant is not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the O.P.-respondents relied on a decision in case of Looks v. Carrier Aircon Ltd. and Others, reported in III (1997) CPJ 83. In this case, this Commission has taken the view the purchaser of air-conditioner, for the purpose of business is not a consumer. In case of M/s. Arya Bhavan Sweets v. M/s. Rado Automation, reported in III (1998) CPJ 619. This Commission has taken the view, the purchaser of the U.P.S. system for a business purpose cannot be considered, as a consumer as defined under the Act. The National Commission in case of Catvision Products Ltd. v. Pragati Computers (P) Ltd., reported in I (1996) CPJ 21 (NC), has held the purchaser of EPABX System for a business purpose cannot be considered, as a consumer. In the instant case also, the purchaser of the telephone system referred above is, for a business purpose as the installation of the said telephone is in the premises of the factory, belonging to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act, and, therefore, he cannot maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. The learned Counsel, appearing for the complainant relied upon the decision of the Haryana State Commission in the case of Sub-Divisional Officer, H.S.E.B. v. Sita Ram, reported in II (1992) CPJ 819, and submits that the dispute filed by the complainant is maintainable. The complainant in the said case has obtained electricity supply to a business premises. As there was some deficiency, a dispute was raised under the Consumer Protection Act. The Haryana State Commission has taken the view that, not providing electric supply to a business premises is held to be a deficiency, and it is a consumer dispute. Further, in view of the decisions of this Commission, and the decision of the National Commission referred to above, we don’t propose to follow the decision of the Haryana State Commission. Hence, we pass the following order:

The complaint is dismissed.

However, it is open for the complainant to avail any other remedy available to him under any law.

Complaint dismissed.