A corporate body is not considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, when the product or service in question is used for commercial purposes.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, (P.M) - The whole controversy pivots around the question of maintainability of this complaint, i.e., "Whether, the Bengal Rowing Club, a Body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Kolkata, the Complainant, is a "consumer", under Section 2(1)(d) (i) and (ii) with the explanation appended to it, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The complainant approached several lift manufacturers. The offer dated 08.06.2010 of King Fisher Elevator Industries Pvt. Ltd., the OP1, was found to be most competitive. The complainant placed an order to OP1 to install one Hydraulic 8-passenger lift and paid price of Rs. 4.7 lakhs and incidental costs in the sum of Rs. 0.75 lakhs towards M.S. structure and interior design necessary to install the lift. It is alleged that OP1 did not satisfactorily install the lift. The same had several defects. Correspondence went on between the parties but the defects could not be removed. OP1, thereafter, introduced Frankson Elevator & Escalator Industries, OP2 to remove the defects. However, both tried to remove the defects, but they failed to do so. The complainant, on its own engaged Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., to assess the position. It is contended that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to OP2.

3. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that OP1 be directed to refund Rs. 7,40,000/- being the cost of the defective and unserviceable lift and Rs. 3,00,000/- paid to OP2. It also demanded compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,00/- and pendente lite interest in the sum of Rs. 1,49,175/- @ 12% p.a. and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

4. The District Forum decided the case in favour of the complainant and gave the following directions :-

"OPs are directed to remove the lift immediately at their own cost and to pay Rs. 7,40,000/- the amount which has been paid by the complainant and out of that amount, OP No.1 shall have to pay Rs. 4,40,000/- and OP No.2 shall have to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the OPs jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order for adopting unfair trade practise and both the OPs shall have to pay separately the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for adopting unfair trade practise and the said amount shall be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund within one month from the date of this order.

OPs are directed to comply this order very strictly within one month from the date of this order failing which for disobeyance of the Forum's order, each OP shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, same shall be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund".

5. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission by OPs 1 & 2. The State Commission passed the following order :-

"Appellants are present through their Ld. Advocate.

None appears for the Respondent. The petition for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing. There is delay of 191 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants submits that the complaint itself is not maintainable inasmuch as the complainant, being a body corporate, incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in commercial activity. In this connection, the Ld.Advocate for the Appellants relied on the following decisions : 2013 (3) CPR 514 (SC), Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., and (2013) CPR 49 (NC) - Pawan Ganga Education Society v. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator & Anr. Having heard the Ld. Advocate and on perusal of the papers on record, we condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited by the Appellants with the S.C.W.F. by 13.04.2015".

6. We have heard the co