ORDER

For the Appellant             :          Mr. Avnish Dave and Mr. Aadhar

                                                Saha, Advocates

For the Respondent          :          Mr. Kushagrh Goyal, Advocate

ORDER

PER SUBHASH CHANDRA

The present Appeal challenges the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1., Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.14 of 2009 filed by the Appellant.  The State Commission dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Appellant Institution works for commercial purposes and therefore, the Complainant does not come within the classification of “Consumer” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the “Act”).

2.      In brief, the facts of the case are that the Appellant, who is an educational institution, filed the Complaint before the State Commission and stated that on 12.02.2004 it had entered into a contract with the Respondent for the construction work of its school building.  Appellant had paid ₹10 Lakhs to the Respondent prior to commencement of the work.  It was alleged that the Respondent did not carry out the work according to the agreement on account of which the Appellant had to suffer loss of ₹28 Lakhs towards fees as it could not commence classes and the work of the building constructed by the Respondent was also of inferior quality.  It was alleged that the Respondent, despite charging rates higher than the market rate, did not execute quality work which constitutes serious deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.  The Complainant claimed ₹28 Lakhs towards loss of school fees, ₹48,02,723/- towards low standard material, construction and repair and ₹10 Lakhs towards compensation for loss on account of deficiency in service of the Respondent.

3.      Contesting the Complaint, the Respondent filed his reply to the Complaint stating that the Complainant Institution provides education on commercial basis.  It was stated that they had carried out the work correctly as per the contract.  It was contended that the Appellant Institution never made payments at the appropriate time due to which they had filed a suit for recovery against the Appellant and others in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer.  It was contended that the Appellant Institution filed the Complaint before the State Commission with the intention to escape recovery of ₹22,50,560/- outstanding against it with regard to which the last bill dated 24.03.2005 was sent to it.  It was contended that as per the contract executed between it and the Appellant Institution on 12.02.2004, the building was handed over to the Appellant on 23.03.2005.  It was stated that the Complaint was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation of two years and therefore, the Complaint was not maintainable as the agreement was of a commercial nature, barred by limitation and the nature of the dispute being of a civil nature.  It was, therefore, prayed that the Complaint be dismissed. 

4.      The State Commission vide its impugned order has held and ordered as under:

“It is clear from all the discussions made above that the complainant institution works for commercial objectives, therefore, the complaint of the complainant does not come within the classification of Consumer.  Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed.  Looking to the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs of the complaint.”

The Appellant is before this Commission with the prayer to:

5.      I have heard arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.  Short synopsis of arguments have also been perused.

6.      It is argued on behalf of the Appellant Institution that the Appellant is an Educational Society, registered under the Rajasthan Institutional Registration Act, 1958 (Rajasthan Act No.28 of 1958) and that the Appellant is a “consumer” as per Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986