JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, MEMBER

ORDER

1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/complainant, challenging Order dated 18.04.2018 passed by learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”), whereby the First Appeal No.934 of 2016 preferred by the respondent/opposite party was allowed. Thereby the Order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaunpur allowing CC No.40 of 2015 was set aside.

The petitioner and respondent are hereinafter referred to as complainant and opposite party respectively, as appearing in the complaint, for sake of convenience.

2. Facts fall within a narrow compass. Petitioner/complainant claims to be a contractor engaged in construction work on a small scale for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Complainant undertook a construction contract worth Rs.2 lacs for construction of house of one Vanshraj Yadav and for execution of contract purchased SS steel pipes weighting 9 kg. 900 gms. from Surya Steel Hardware (OP/respondent) for a total consideration of Rs.43,277/- along with 26 ‘stap’ for Rs.7,100/- and other construction material. Complainant further claims to have purchased 180 pieces of ‘Dandli’, which were found unsuitable for intended work due to incorrect dimensions.

3. Complainant alleged that an excess amount of Rs.60/- per pipe, totalling Rs.1,560/- was charged by OP. Further, SS pipes supplied by the OP/respondent were deficient in weight by approximately 2.8 kg per pipe and when the complainant sought replacement of 32 defective pipes, the same were neither replaced, nor refund was made by OP. Consequently, complainant claims to have suffered substantial financial loss owing to supply of deficient and defective material by the OP.

4. OP/respondent, apart from disputing deficiency in service challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that complainant was engaged in construction activity for commercial purpose and, as such, did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. Vide Order dated 31.03.2016, learned District Forum partly allowed the claim holding that the complainant undertook the contract for earning his livelihood and, therefore, fell within the definition of ‘consumer’. Further, complainant was held entitled to Rs.43,277/- from OP towards 32 pieces of SS pipes with interest @ 7% per annum from 20.12.2014.

6. FA No.934 of 2016 preferred on behalf of OP challenging the Order passed by learned District Forum, was allowed by the learned State Commission, holding that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the learned State Commission, complainant/petitioner has preferred the present Revision Petition and prays for restoration of Order passed by the learned District Forum, whereby the complainant was allowed.

8. The reasons recorded by the learned State Commission vide impugned Order dated 18.04.2018 may be reproduced for appreciation of contentions raised on behalf of the respective counsels:

“According to complaint, the respondent/complainant asked to the appellant/defendant to give another pipe after changing that pipe, on which, he received back the pipe sold