A purchaser of goods for a business involving the employment of others to generate profit does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, as such activities fall under the commercial purpose exclusion rather than the self-employment exception.

O R D E R

(By Tmt.S.OUMASANGUERY, Member)

1. The appeal is filed by the first opposite party in CC No.16 of 2023 (herein after called appellant) as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in CC No.16 of 2023. The appeal is filed under section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the Act in short) by the first opposite party in CC No.16/2023 against the 1st respondent herein, who was the complainant and against the third opposite party in the CC.

2. Aggrieved by the order of District Commission, the appellant is here before us praying for the following relief

a. Allow the present Appeal and set aside the Impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal commission, Puducherry in consumer complaint No. 16 of 2023 and;

b. Grant stay on the proceeding before the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2023 till the disposal of the Appeal and;

c. Dismiss the Consumer Complaint bearing No. 16 of 2023 being non-maintainable ;

d. Call for the records filed before the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2023 and/or;

e. pass any other such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The District Commission passed the following orders. The complaint is partly allowed as follows:

1 The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the mental agony and physical hardships suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service by them.

2 The opposite party No.3 is directed to issue final closing report within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

3 The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rupees ten thousands only) as litigation cost to the complainant.

4 All the above sums shall be paid within 5 days from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the total sum shall carry an interest at the rate of, 6% per annum till realization.

4. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Commission, the Appellant is here before us on appeal upon the following grounds:

First, that the order violates the principles of natural justice because it was passed without granting the Appellant a fair opportunity to present their case.

Second, the Appellant asserts they should not be penalized for the negligence of their previous counsel, who failed to file the Written Statement despite receiving it within the stipulated time.

Third, the Appellant claims they had no contractual obligation to deliver the "Machine Side" components because Respondent No. 1 breached the agreement by paying only a partial amount of Rs. 50,000 instead of the mandatory 100% advance payment.

Fourth, the Appellant points out that any delay regarding the "Low Side" installation components were solely the responsibility of Respondent No. 2.

Finally, the Appellant argues that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction entirely; because the air conditioning units were purchased for a commercial hotel/inn to generate profit, Respondent No. 1 does not legally qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5. Facts in Brief

1. Case of the Complainant: The complainant, a 63-year-old senior citizen who runs a boarding and lodging facility called P.N. Samy INN, placed an order for 14 air conditioning units on February 22, 2020, through the 3rd oppos