JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that complainant is a Private Limited company and op firm is engaged in business of design, Engineering Manufacturing of IR Plant, Softness Plant, D.M. Plant, R.O. Plant, E.T. Plant, Hydronumatic System, Hospital Dialysis, water treatment plant, water swimming pools and maintenance work etc and complainant intended to install a packaging drinking plant and as per op’s knowledge and experience in this regard they requested the op to visit the office place for installation for packaging drinking plant and accordingly the complainant in good faith accepted the proposal of such installation and advised the ops to submit the proposal together with terms and conditions for further discussion.

          Thereafter on 26.06.2012 ops submitted their proposal for installation of package drinking water plant together with terms and conditions, treatment scheme, filtration system etc. together with price list and requested to pay of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance fully refundable in case the proposal is not finalized.  Accordingly on good faith, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to Sri Debraj Saha with an assurance to submit money receipt on the next date of visit.  That on 12.07.2012 again the representative of the ops visited the office of the complainant with a request to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- and on good faith the complainant paid the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- to the op for which Mr Debraj Saha representative of the ops received the said amount and issued two numbers of money receipt being Nos. 393 and 394 respectively.

          On payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance to the op, complainant realized that the quotation was not as per the market rate but op did not agree to reduce the price and due to difference in between the both parties, complainant stopped implementation of his project and requested the op to refund or return the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at the earliest which was verbally agreed by the ops.  But ultimately they did not refund and in so many manners harassing the complainant and for which the complainant filed this complaint.

          On the other hand op by filing written version has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and further submitted that op placed the quotation as per advise of the complainant on 26.06.2012 and submitted quotation giving Rs.90,50,000/- which will submit to the company and against that Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to complete the assign and relying upon such assurance by the complainant, op purchased the goods from the market for installation of the said plant and when op was processing the said plant for installation at that time unilateral decision was taken by the complainant for cancelling the said quotation and have prayed for return of the sum.  Moreover complainant is a company, so, they are not consumer and there is no question of deficiency of service of the op and practically in the eye of law complainant has cheated the op when op has already purchased the materials for installation of the said plant and practically op has sustained huge loss and damages for cancelling the said quotation and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          After hearing the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant and also considering the ops’ written version including the materials, it is found that in the instant case complainant is the private limited company and they intended to install one unit for packaging drinking plant at their company for the purpose of their company and that was completely for commercial purpose and it is provided in definition 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act 1986 that the person who purchased goods for any commercial purpose is not a consumer and therefore the complainant is not a consumer and practically he is not entitled to file the present complaint as the purpose of installing such unit for packaging drinking water plant is for companies business purpose.  Though fact remains complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the op and op has not been refunded the same.

          Though the quotation has already been cancelled by the complainant.  But in view of the settled principal of law and the status of the complainant as not the consumer complainant moved to seek the redressal to the appropriate Civil Court but as per provision of C.P. Act 1986 his status is not as a consumer and for which the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.  When the entire purpose of installation of one unit packaging drinking water plant is completely for commercial purpose and fact remains complainant as a commercial eye on the transaction and his motive to earn some more money by installing the same and so the complainant is not a consumer under constitute of consumer as envisaged as C.P. Act 1986 and thus the complaint does not attract.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the ops.