L.K. TRUST vs O.P. MEHRA

IN this complaint, M/s. Khoday Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., have sought refund of a sum of Rs. 3,02,487/- with interest thereon and also a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.

IT is the case of the complainant that it ordered for the supply and to instal necessary kitchen equipments to its restaurant, known as "Cellar Bar and Blue Bird" situated at Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. The opposite parties accepted the said offer by their letter dated 13.6.1990. The quotations were also accepted subject to the terms and conditions that 50% of the cost was to be paid in advance and for which the opposite parties shall supply the equipment required for the Cellar Bar and Blue Bird restaurant within a period of 8 weeks therefrom and thereafter within a period of one month the back-up kitchen equipment was to be supplied and installed. The complainant made the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,02,487/- on 22.6.1990 towards the payment of 50% of the cost of supply and installation of the equipment. It is the further case of the complainant that the opposite parties supplied certain equipments, even against the specifications, that was supplied partly was unsuitable, and inconvenient. The O.Ps. thereafter failed to supply the balance 50% of the equipment as ordered and as agreed to supply.

The complainant failed to get any response from the opposite parties, even after repeated demands, filed the complaint seeking the reliefs as narrated above.

THIS complaint came to be filed on 7.7.1993. The opposite parties filed their version and contested the claim of the complaint.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties regarding the maintainability of the complaint. The complainant is a hotel business concern. It purchased the equipment from the opposite parties, that is, kitchen equipment and cellar equipments for its business purpose. It is the case of the complainant that the equipment supplied was not in accordance with the specifications and the further grievance of the complainant is that the balance 50% of the equipment was not supplied at all. Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the complainant cannot be classified as a "consumer" under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The goods purchased for consideration by the complainants were admittedly for commercial purpose, so in that view, the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986.

ADMITTEDLY the agreement entered into between the parties was dated 13.6.1990. According to the terms and conditions of the said agreement, 50% of the equipment was to be supplied within 8 weeks from that date and the balance 50% within a period of one month thereafter. The opposite party supplied, even according to the averments of the complainant, within a period of 8 weeks 50% of the equipment thereafter failed to supply the balance 50% of the equipment which he was to supply within a period of one month after 30.8.1990. The complaint came to be filed only on 7.7.1993. Therefore, it is clear that the complaint of the complainant is time barred. In this view as well, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Pronounced in the open court on 30th March, 1995. Complaint dismissed.