Self-employment purchases by individuals do not negate consumer protection jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, even if goods are for commercial use.

ORDER

(Per: Mr. M.K. Singhal, Member (Judicial):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 122 of 2011 styled as Sh. Sudhir Joshi vs. United Cooling System Pvt. Ltd. and Others, wherein and whereby the complaint was partly allowed by the District Commission.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the impugned judgment is patently erroneous, factually wrong, legally perverse, arbitrary, capricious, is without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and without any reasoned finding and as such is liable to be set aside. The entire finding is very vague and is liable to be set aside. The District Commission exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and with material irregularity and illegality. The District Commission had failed to consider the fact that there was no privity of contract in between the complainant, i.e. Sh. Sudhir Kumar Joshi and the opposite parties, since the entire transaction took place in between M/s Anand Ice Factory and the opposite parties accordingly, the complaint was not legally maintainable at the very threshold. Because the bare reading of the complaint would show the fact that the respondent – complainant being a firm is a commercial establishment and the Heat Exchanger and Cooling Tower were purchased by the respondent – complainant for commercial activities and as per the specific averment in the complaint in para Nos. 9, 12 and 13 the complainant had alleged business loss and claimed for commercial loss to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- accordingly holding otherwise and deciding the same to be for self- employment is clearly a wrong decision, which is liable to be set aside. Merely by filing the complaint in the individual name, as the complainant did, cannot make a commercial entity to be an individual or non- commercial entity. The District Commercial has failed to decide the preliminary objection as raised by the appellants in their written statement, as per para-11, where the jurisdiction of the District Commission had specifically been challenged and denied by the appellants, but in the impugned judgment this preliminary issue of jurisdiction has totally been ignored, which goes to the root of the matter, since in this case, District Commission was not having jurisdiction to decide the complaint, the entire judgment becomes void-ab-initio. The specific plea as per para-16 of the written statement of the appellants have been totally discarded and even as per the reply notice of the appellants, it has clearly been specified that the Heat Exchanger and Cooling Tower were supplied to the respondent as per the specifications in the quotation No. UCS/Q/Ra/210/10-11 dated 15.05.2010 and UCS/Q/Ra/218/10-11 dated 18.05.2010 which was confirmed by the respondent vide his letter dated 14.10.2010, but all these aspects have been ignored by the District Commission. Even the District Commission had failed to consider the reply notice / mail of the appellants wherein it was clearly mentioned that since the respondent firm had asked for purchase of Cooling Tower and Plate type Heat Exchanger with SS 316 Plate, 60 Nos. tested with 5 kg/Cm2 Pressure, which was suitable for maximum pressure of 5 kg/Cm2 only to give 75TR cooling capacity