AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
The complainant, which is a company engaged in manufacturing of induction heated pipes bend of carbon steel, alloy steel and stainless steel pipes etc. placed an order with the respondent for supply of the pipe induction heating system. The said order was later cancelled by the appellant / complainant, for the reasons, which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal. Thereafter, the appellant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount of Rs.19,15,721/-, which it had paid to the respondent as advance payment, along with interest etc.
The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission holding that the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer, it having purchased the machinery for the purpose of its business. Though, an application was filed by the complainant / appellant seeking to amend the complaint in order to plead that the machinery was purchased to run the company for self-employment and for earning livelihood. The said application was rejected. The complaint having been dismissed, the appellant / complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
The term 'consumer' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and excludes from its ambit a person buying goods or hiring or availing services for a commercial purpose, unless such purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services comes within the scope of the explanation below Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act.
It is alleged in the complaint itself that the complainant company is engaged in manufacturing of several products and had placed an order with the respondent for supply of pipe induction heating system. It is therefore, evident that the pipes bend of carbon steel, alloy steel and stainless steel pipes etc. was sought to be purchased by the complainant company for its manufacturing activities which undoubtedly would be a commercial purpose.
Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant is covered under the explanation below Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, I find no merit in the contention. The explanation is per se inapplicable to a juridical person such as a company and applies only to an individual. There can be no question of a company seeking to earn its livelihood by means of self-employment. Such a claim can be made only by a natural person and not by a juridical person such as a company. Therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant was clearly not maintainable.
The order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is however, made clear that dismissal of the consumer complaint shall not come in the way of the complainant / appellant availing such remedy, other than a consumer complaint, as may be open to it in law, for the redressal of its grievances.