Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President, B.K. Taimni, R.K. Batta, Members
Sanjay D. Ghodawat-Appellant
Versus
R.R.B. Energy Ltd.-Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No. 155 of 2008
Radhe Enterprise-Complainant
Versus
Suzlon Energy Ltd.-Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2009
Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd.-Appellant
Versus
Birla Technologist Ltd.-Opposite Party
First Appeal No. 218 of 2004
Decided On : 17-12-2009
For the Complainants in CC No. 155/08 and 38/09:Mr. Ramesh Singh, Ms. Bina Singh, Mr. Gaurav Singh and Mr. Ankur, Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties in CC No. 155/08 and 38/09 :Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra and Mr. Anshu Bhanot, Advocates.
For the Appellant in FA No. 218/04 :Mr. J.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Bharat Sangal, Mr. R.R. Kumar, Ms. Vernika Tomar and Ms. Mrinalini Oinam, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person availing services for commercial purpose does not fall within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Commercial Purpose - 1986-96 Consumer 1999 (NS); 1996(1) CCC 167 (NS); 1986-2005 Consumer 9599 (NS); 1986-2006 Consumer 10367 (NS) - The court discussed the maintainability of complaints before a Consumer Forum for commercial purposes, considering the definition of 'consumer' and 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act. The court referred to various judgments and the amendment to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, which excluded services hired or availed for commercial purpose from the ambit of consumer. The court held that a person availing services for commercial purpose would not fall within the definition of consumer, and dismissed the complaints.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) for commercial purpose and alleged defects during the warranty period. The court considered whether the complainant qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, who purchased goods for commercial purpose and availed services for commercial purpose, did not fall within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and dismissed the complaints.
Issues: The main issue was whether a person purchasing goods or availing services for commercial purpose qualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the amended Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, which excluded services hired or availed for commercial purpose from the ambit of consumer, and relied on various judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaints, stating that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
ORDER :
R.K. Batta, Member
The Original Complaint No. 155 of 2008 was ordered to be placed before the Larger Bench in view of order dated 16.12.2008 passed by a Bench of this Commission.The said order reads as under:
“We have heard Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the complainant at length on the question of main-tainability of the present complaint before this Commission.
As per the complainant, he had purchased Wind Electric Generators (WEGs) at a cost of more than Rs. 73 crores from the opposite party for generating and distributing/selling electric energy, i.e., for a clearly commercial purpose. It is alleged that certain defects were noticed in the installation of the said WEGs during the warranty/extended warranty period, which would entitle the complainant to seek remedy against the opposite party under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even if the purchase of the WEGs (and installation and related services rendered in that context) was (were) for a commercial purpose. For this Mr. Prabhavalkar relies on the judgment of this Commission in the case of Amtrex Ambience Ltd. v. M/s. Alpha Radios & Anr., 1986-96 Consumer 1999 (NS); 1996(1) CCC 167 (NS); Meera & Co. Ltd. v. Chinar Syntex Ltd., 1986-2005 Consumer 9599 (NS); M/s. Pearlite Lines Ltd. v. M/s. Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation & Anr., 1986-2006 Consumer 10367 (NS) which dealt with the situation prior to the amendment of definition of “Consumer” by the amending Act of 62 of 2002.
Having regard to these facts, circumstances and contentions, an important question has arisen about the maintainability of the present complaint (as well as such future complaints if any) before a Consumer Forum, including this Commission. In our view, this important question needs consideration and determination by a Larger Bench of this Commission. We therefore, direct the Registry to list the matter before a Larger Bench of the Commission after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble President.
A copy of this order may be sent to the learned Counsel for the complainant”.
2. The Original Complaint No. 38 of 2009 was admitted and was ordered to be listed along with OP No. 155 of 2008. F.A. No. 218 of 2004 was ordered to be placed before the larger Bench in view of the order passed on 14.1.2008, which reads as under:
“Considering the judgment rendered by three Judges Bench in First Appeal No. 112/1992 decided on 7thFebruary, 1992, the matter be placed before the Larger Bench for consideration.”
In all these matters, the issue involved is the same and as such the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The issue in question is whether a person who has purchased goods for commercial purpose after coming into force of the Amendment Act, 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003 would fall within the ambit of consumer when he avails of services in the nature of warranty attached to the goods purchased.
4. We shall first narrate the facts in each matter, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in question.
5. The complainant in Original Complaint No. 155 of 2008 is an entrepreneur by profession and is carrying on business of power generation and running wind mills at various places in the States viz. Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat. The complainant had engaged/availed the services of OP for consideration for commissioning of Vestas RRB make Pawan Shakthi type 600 KW Wind Electric Generators (For short WEGs) with 47 meter Rotor Dia on 50 meter tower height at the Wind Mill Project site. The OP had offered to supply WEGs manufactured by it and to erect and commission the same at various sites in Karnataka. Despite the purchase order dated 22.7.2006 and payments made, the OP could not erect/commission the said wind mills at its original agreed site at Malgatti, Karnataka. By agreement the site was shifted to Harihar and the complainant conveyed his consent in respect of 7 wind mills. According to the complainant, the generation of 7 WEGs installe
