Due to want of quorum, the pronouncement of order could not be undertaken earlier. The matter is, therefore, listed today for pronouncement accordingly.

None appeared for the appellant.

Order pronounced, signed & dated as under.

ORDER

PER: JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT

Pronounced on: 02.06.2026

1. This appeal is preferred against order dated 27.01.2026 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2017/461, whereby the District Commission, after examining the pleadings and documents, held that the cold storage facility was a large-scale commercial undertaking, not for livelihood or self-employment, and therefore the complainant/ appellant did not fall within the definition of “consumer.” The complaint was dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that proprietor of the complainant/ appellant, Alok Singh belongs to an agriculturist’s family and does agricultural works, constructed a cold storage facility in Bemetara district with a bank loan and purchased a double-deep pallet racking system from the opposite parties/ respondents for ₹76,84,002/-, assured of high-quality technology and lifetime service. On 15.02.2017, a pallet broke despite carrying only 1000 kg, causing damage to stored produce and a Rider Reach Truck. Alleging poor quality installation and deficiency in service, the complainant/ appellant filed the complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation on various grounds.

3. The opposite parties/ respondents denied the allegations, contending that the cold storage project worth about ₹10 crores was a large-scale commercial undertaking, not covered under the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They further argued that jurisdiction lay in Chennai, disputes were subject to arbitration, and the complainant/ appellant had defaulted on payment of ₹13,12,221/-. They maintained that the pallet failure was due to improper connection and collision marks from the complainant/ appellant’s Rider Reach Truck, not defective material, and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Learned District Commission, after examining the pleadings and documents, held dismissed the complaint as not maintainable holding that the cold storage was a large-scale commercial undertaking, that for livelihood or self-employment, and therefore the complainant did not fall within the definition of “consumer.”

5. Arguments heard on admission of this appeal. Record perused.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant reiterating the grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo has argued before us that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint by failing to appreciate that the cold storage was constructed for livelihood or self-employment, not commercial profiteering. It is further argued that the District Commission ignored evidence of defective pallets and deficiency in service, and wrongly concluded that the appellant was not a consumer.

7. Upon careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the cold storage facility involved investment of approximately ₹10 crores, with infrastructure of 20,000 sq. ft., multiple chambers, and imported equipment. The scale and nature of the project clearly indicate a commercial enterprise. The appellant/ complainant’s claim of livelihood/self-employment is not substantiated by the record, which demonstrates business objectives and commercial scale.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Poly Medicure Limited v. M/s Brillio Technologies Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024, decided 13 November 2025 (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1314) held that the purchase of software by a company for automating its business processes, where the dominant purpose is connected to profit generation, constitutes a commercial transaction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Corporate entities availing goods/services