KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.14/08 JUDGMENT DATED.22.08.08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M/s.Malabar Latex Pvt.Ltd., 1/392 Post Thengallur, Mulankunnathukavu, Thrissur District, represented in this proceeding By its Managing Director M/s.Malabar : COMPLAINANT Latex Pvt.Ltd., 1/392 Post Thengallur, Mulankunnathukavu, Thrissur (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura,R.S.Kalkura & G.S.Kalkura) Vs Alpha Laval (India) Ltd., 41/1777 Aswathy, Kalyani Apartments, Opp.Sudheendra Hospital, : OPPOSITE PARTY Chittoor Road, Kochi, Kerala. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above complaint is filed by the Private limited company by name M/s.Malabar Latex Pvt. Ltd., The complaint is filed against the opposite party Alpha Laval (India) Ltd., who sold the machinery (Latex Separator) to the complainant company. Admittedly the aforesaid machinery was purchased for conducting the business of the complainant company. The case of the complainant is that the said machinery developed defects during the warranty period itself and thereby there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in selling the defective machinery to the complainant company. The machinery was purchased for the business purpose of the complainant company. If that be so, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further to be noted the purchase was effected in the year 2004 ie; after the commencement of the amendment to section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. So, by the said amendment which came into force on 15.3.2003 the purchase of machinery for commercial purpose even will be outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It may be argued that the defects developed during the warranty period would not attracted the exclusion clause in section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. It is to be noted that by the amendment which came into force on 15.3.2003 service availed for commercial purpose has also been excluded from the purview of the Act. Prior to the said amendment, the service rendered for commercial purpose was not excluded from the purview of the definition of consumer. By the said amendment service availed or hired for commercial purpose is also excluded from the purview of the Act. It is a settled position that the defects developed during the warranty period is to be treated as deficiency in service warranty is service. But, after the amendment Act 62 of 2002 the service availed for commercial purpose has also been excluded. So, the complainant herein cannot be treated or considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant has also produced the memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the complainant company. A perusal of those documents would not given any indication that the company was constituted for the self employment of its directors. Thus, the exemption clause attached to section 2 (1) (d) has no application as far as the complainant company is concerned. Thus, in all aspects the present complaint cannot be entertained by this state commission because of the fact that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If that be so, the present complaint is to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Hence we do so. In the result the complaint is dismissed, as the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER R.AV
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
