NEW EMPIRE SILK HOUSE vs Carrier Aircon Ltd.

THIS complaint was presented before the State Commission on 16.7.92. A copy of the same, alongwith a notice, was sent to respondents M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. through Manager Branch Aliganj, Lucknow and M/s. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. at their New Delhi address given in the complaint. The opposite party No. 2 filed a reply on 12.4.93 in which a preliminary objection is taken that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. An application has been made by the second respondent praying for decision of this preliminary issue.

THE order sheet shows that on 9.3.1993, a partner of the complainant firm was present through his Counsel Sri A.P. Singh, Advocate. On some dates thereafter no one was present on behalf of the complainant. After the present State Commission was constituted in the month of November, 1993, the case was listed for the first time on 11.2.1994. On that date also no one appeared on behalf of the complainant though the Counsel for the second opposite party was present. The Commission noticed the fact of the earlier absence and the plea made by Sri Vijay Sodhi, Advocate appearing for the second opposite party that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a Consumer. It was considered necessary to issue notice to the complainant for the hearing of the preliminary question for today ( ). The notice was despatched by Registered Post by the office of the State Commission on 15.2.1994. Today, Sri Mohamed Ali, Advocate holding the brief of Shri A.P. Singh Gaur appeared before us and prayed for adjournment on the ground that the complainant could not be contacted. Sri Sodhi objected to it and we also felt that it was not fair to grant any further adjournment to the complainant, a local party, on the mere asking because today also Sri Vijay Sodhi, a Counsel from Delhi, has appeared before us on behalf of the second opposite party and has objected to further adjournment.

We find it stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint that the complainant was a partnership firm and was carrying on business of sale of watches by establishing a show room at Lucknow. Further that the complainant had purchased a three Tonne Air Conditioner for the shop. The complaint also recites in paragraphs 13 and 14 that on account of the faulty unit supplied to the complainant he was suffering harassment and commercial loss and that loss was enormous during the summer season which was a peak season for the business of the complainant. The assertion also is that the loss was not less than Rs. one lakh is any case.

IN the last paragraph of the complaint, the reliefs claimed, inter alia, are that the complainant should be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,200/- by way of compensation for the commercial and other losses suffered by the complainant apart from the prayer for replacement of the units or in the alternative, the value thereof amounting to Rs. 1,38,600/- with interest at 21%. All these allegations cumulatively lead to only one conclusion that in the circumstances outlined in the complaint the purchase of the air conditioning unit was made for commercial purposes. As such, the complainant can not be considered to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus, the present complaint can not be entertained and disposed of on merits by the State Commission. We hold accordingly and dispose of the complaint finally on the preliminary question but leave the parties to bear the own costs.

A copy of this order may be made available to Counsel for the parties in accordance with Rule 4(10) of the U.P. Upbhokta Sanrakshan Niyamawali 1988. Complaint dismissed.