AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant in this case is a business man who is the proprietor of Modern Plastic House, Chowk Madhopuri, Ludhiana. He is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of plastic products. His case is that he used to be allocated 2 M.T. of Low Density Polythylene every month by respondent No. 2 and that from April 1990 onwards the said respondent stopped releasing his quota of Low Density Polythylene as a result thereof, he suffered loss of Rs. 4,96,000/- approximately. It is alleged by the complainant that his lodging of protest with the respondents remained unheeded. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 4,96,000/- from the respondents.
THIS complaint has been resisted by the respondents who have controverted the allegations of the complainant. Their stand is that the complainant cannot by any stretch of imagination qualify as ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the present case the complainant has clearly admitted that he has been utilising the material in the manufacturing of plastic goods which are thereafter resold in the market for consideration. The respondents have denied that the complainant was allocated 2 M.T. of Low Density Polythylene. According to them the quantities released to the various units from April 1990 onwards were calculated on the basis of their monthly off take and this norm was being followed uni-formally without any discrimination. Their case is that the complainant has lifted merely 1 M.T. of the product in November 1989 and thereafter he had not purchased any material from the respondents. It is alleged that in spite of the ready availability of the product with the respondents, the complainant did not purchase any material from them and moreover if the complainant had been a genuine party, he would not have waited for 13 months to lodge his protest against the non-supply of the material for his unit. From the reading of the pleadings of the complainant it is clear that the Low Density Polythylene was being purchased by him for commercial purpose. The complainant firm itself was registered to manufacture plastic goods and deal in them with a view to make profits. A person who purchases goods for any commercial purpose, does not fall within the definition of ''consumer''. The complainant in view of the aforesaid definition is not a ''consumer'' and therefore, he cannot file the complaint. If he has any grievances, he may agitate them in a suit or other appropriate proceedings. With these observations, we dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.