ORDER

This appeal is directed against order dated 21.06.1995, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hazaribagh, in Consumer Complaint no. 326 of 1995, whereby the complainant was held maintainable and the appellants objection was overruled.

On 19.07.1995 the appeal was filed before the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna and was registered as FA no. 311 of 1995. After bifurcation of erstwhile Bihar State and on establishment of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ranchi the said appeal was transferred from Patna to Ranchi and here it has been registered as Fa no. 23 of 2007. On notice the appellant appeared and filed fresh Vakalatnama.

The Complainant is a private limited Company and a Government Contractor. On

02.06.1994 it purchased one D.G. (Diesel Generator) set of 110 KVA from M/s Sudhir Engineering company, New Delhi. The generator set was not functioning properly and on 25.11.1994 it broke down. M/s Sudhir Engineering did not entertain the complain and therefor ethe Complainant got it repaired elsewhere at its own cost. It was alleged that defect arose due to manufacturing defects. M/s Kriloskar Cummins Ltd. failed to provide proper service and remove defect as per warranty. The complainant claimed payment of Rs. 1,26,140.00, price of the parts purchased including labour charges; Rs.

50,000.00 by way of damages to his works and harassment and Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation for mental agony with appropriate rate of interest.

The opposite party raised objections regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that Complainant was not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the Generator was purchased for commercial purpose. The complainant refuted the allegation and claimed to have purchased the set for personal use.

Placing reliance on a decision of Madras Consumer Commission reported in 1993 (1)

CPR 338, wherein it was held that even if the goods were purchased for commercial purpose and there was warranty for proper working and maintenance, the purchaser becomes a consumer in respect of the services rendered by the manufacturer during the period of warranty, the District Forum held that the Complainant was a consumer and complaint under the Act was maintainable.

In our opinion, the District Forum committed an error in passing the impugned order. In this regard, reference be made to a decision of national Consumer Commission, New Delhi dated 03.03.1993, in Original Petition no. 67 of 1992, Surat Philter Rayon (P) Ltd.

Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. and others, wherein it was observed that generator was purchased for the purpose of installing the same in Rayon Mills, where manufacture of rayon textiles was being carried on, the purchaser can not be regarded as ‘Consumer’

within the meaning of 1986 Act in as much as purchase of said machinery was manifestly for a commercial purpose, namely for installation in a rayon mill, where profit making activity on a large scale was being carried on.

In the present case the complainant company admittedly was engaged in contract works and by no stretch of imagination it can be said to be engaged for earning its livelihood by self-employment. We find that here the purchase of generator set was for enabling the complainant-company to carry on commercial activity. We are of the view that the Complainant was not maintainable and was fit to be dismissed.

However, the appeal has also become infructuous for the reason that during pendency of the instant appeal, Consumer Complaint no. 326 of 1994 proceeded before the District Consumer Forum, Hazaribagh as it was held maintainable by the impugned order dated 21.06.1995 and the said order was not stayed by the appellate court.

Subsequently Complaint was transferred from District Consumer forum, Hazaribagh to newly created District Consumer Forum, Koderma, which had territorial Jurisdiction over the case and at Koderma the Complaint was dismissed on 27.11.2002. In t