Justice Ashok Bhan, President — Complainant/petitioner is carrying on the business of Engineers, Consultants and Builders. As per the allegations made in the Complaint, the petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterprise) for the construction of a single seater Hostel of 500 rooms at Sant Harchand Singh Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal, District Sangrur, Punjab. According to the terms of the contract and specifications, the external finish of the hostel building was cement based. The contract also specified the colours of the paint and its quality. It was specifically mentioned in the contract that the paint should be of super-snowcem quality. Accordingly, petitioner purchased 50 bags of super-snowcem for Rs. 40,703 on 13.7.1992 and 12 bags of the same on 11.8.1992 for Rs. 9,768.72 p. from M/s. Capital Building Stores, SCF No. 37, Sector-18C, Chandigarh/respondent No.2, which is the authorized dealer of the manufacturer, i.e., M/s. Klick Nixon Limited, Snowcem Division, 69, Regal Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi/ respondent No. 1. According to the petitioner, he used the paint as per the instructions of the manufacturer but the use of the contents of different bags of snowcem showed wide variation in colour and shade. Petitioner brought these defects to the notice of the respondents but as he did not receive any reply, the petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 90,027.94 p. alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

3. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short ‘the State Commission’). The State Commission, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute1, reversed the Order passed by the District Forum holding that the Complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the petitioner had bought the snowcem for a commercial purpose and, therefore, was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’). That the petitioner did not fall in the Exception created by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works case (supra), as he was not a self-employed person.

4. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner filed the present Revision Petition, which was dismissed in limine by this Commission without assigning any reasons.

5. Aggrieved by the Order passed by this Commission, the petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, in which, leave was granted and the same was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2001. The aforesaid Civil Appeal came up for hearing before the Supreme Court on 26.2.2009. Supreme Court set aside the Order passed by this Commission by observing that even in the Order of affirmation, some reasons should have been recorded and, as no reasons were given while dismissing the Revision Petition, the impugned Order was set-aside and the case was remitted back to this Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

6. Petitioner-In-Person and the Counsel for the respondent have been heard at length.

7. This Complaint was filed in the year 1993. The word ‘consumer’ was defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, at the relevant time, to mean, 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,