The central legal point established in the judgment is the definition of a consumer and the requirement to establish a case regarding defective goods under consumer protection laws.

Mrs. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member—The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the District Forum, North Goa in Complaint No. 309/1998.

2. Mr. A.F. D’ Souza and Mr. D.M. Dhond appeared on behalf of the parties and filed written arguments.

3. In a nutshell it is the complainant’s case that it is a company engaged in Real Estate business. It purchased more than 600 sq. mts. ceramic tiles from opposite party No. 1 through their agents the opposite party No. 2 on 28.6.1997 for an amount of Rs. 1,54,338. It noticed extensive shade variations in the tiles after acid washing and this was intimated to the opposite parties by letter dated 6.11.1997. A joint inspection was then carried out in November-December 1997. The complainant was assured of 1st class super fine quality without any defect or shade variations. The complainant issued a letter dated 4.12.1997 and called upon the opposite parties to replace the defective tiles at its costs before 7.1.1998 as the complainant was to hand over possession of the flats on or before 31.1.1998. Pursuant to the said letter Mr. P. Chandrashekar and Mr. P. Ramesh, both officials of the opposite party No. 1 visited the complainant’s building site at Candolim and confirmed the shade variation. It was also agreed by the opposite parties that the defective tiles would be replaced, and accordingly the opposite party issued a letter dated 10.12.1997 confirming that there were shade variations and undertaking to stand by the complainant on case to case basis and wherever the variation was severe. Despite this undertaking given in the said letter to the opposite parties did not replace the defective tiles as a result of which the complainant had to face embarrassment and loss of reputation from his customers.

4. Per contra, the opposite parties raised preliminary objections that the goods were being used for commercial purposes and, therefore, the complainant was not a consumer. On merits, it was submitted that the tiles did not require any polishing or acid washing before or after its fixation. Shade/size variations was an inherent characteristic of ceramic tiles and that any complaint regarding variation beyond standard ought to be brought to the notice prior to laying of the tiles and that no claim could be entertained after the tiles are laid. With regard to the letter dated 10.12.1997, it was submitted that they had assured the complainant to replace the tiles before laying in case variations were severe. It was denied that the opposite parties had undertaken to replace the tiles.

5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant was not a consumer and that the complainant has not established its case regarding defective goods.

6. We agree with the opinion of the District Forum that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, dealing in Real Estate construction. It is well settled that commercial purposes would not include any activity carried out by a person for his self employment.

7. In the present case, the complainant is a company comprising of various Directors and engaged in large scale construction activity.

8. The appellant placed reliance on M/s. Amtrex Ambience Pvt. Ltd. v. Alpha Radios, 1999 NCJ (NC) 120. The judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Commission are on a different set of facts and circumstances which do not have any similarity with the case before us.

9. Nothing survives in this appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

–