IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this appeal there is challenge to order dated 6.9.2011, Passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short as ‘State Commission’). Alongwith it an application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

2. Appellant (complainant before State Commission) in its complaint has stated that he has been carring on the business of crane service under the name and style of “Gurubaksh Logistic India” and is its Managing Director. He had purchased four Hydraulic Mobile Cranes during different period from respondent No.1/ opposite party No.1. It is further stated that appellant is earning his livelihood from the machines in question. Above stated cranes developed defects within warranty period. Despite repeated services provided by the respondents for repairing these machines, defects could not be rectified. Thereafter, appellant approached respondents to replace these machines with new one or to refund its price. However, respondent No. 1 refused to accept to this request. Thereafter, appellant served a legal notice, to which there was no response, Hence, complaint was filed before the State Commission.

3. Respondents in their preliminary objections in the written statement took the plea that complaint is not maintainable as machines were purchased by the appellant for commercial purposes. Moreover, State Commission had no territorial jurisdiction as machines were purchased at New Delhi.

4. On merits, it is stated that appellant had purchased four machines on different dates. Once he was satisfied with the first machine, then only he purchased second, third and likewise fourth machine. It is further stated that appellant had used the machines under worst condition without routine servicing as per the schedule and as per requirement of O. E. Product, Which is evident as appellant never got any free service as per company’s standard schedule. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

5. State Commission, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint.

6. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that State Commission had territorial Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, since purchase order was placed with respondent No. 1, having its office at Ballabgrah, Haryana. It is further contended that machines were purchased by appellant for the purpose of earning livelihood for himself. He did not purchase the same for selling/reselling purpose. As such, appellant is a consumer as per explanation under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act)

7. Taking up application for condonation of delay, for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay is condoned and application stands allowed.

8. State Commission in its impugned order has observed:

“On behalf of opposite parties it is argued by Mr. R.D. Sehgal, advocate that as the complainant had purchased four machines for commercial purpose, therefor, he dose not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defines in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of his arguments learned Counsel for the opposite parties has referred to the following judgments:”

In Meera Industries v. Modern Construction, 2009(1) CPC 108(N.C.), Hon’ble National Commission has observed that where a consumer buy goods for commercial purpose and avails of service attached to the goods in the nature of warranty, he cannot be considered to be “consumer” even for the purpose of services during the warranty period in view of the amendment to Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act, which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003.

Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission in case Billagi Sugar Mill Ltd. v. M/s. Kessels Engineering Works (P) Ltd.,2010 (2) CPC 295 (N.C.)

In case cited as Satish Chander Gupta and Sons v. Klick Nixon Limited and Anr., 2010 (3) CPC 520 (N.C.) Hon’ble National Commission has observed as under:

“11. Illustrating by examp