J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

 

Heard Mr. Koushik Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appears for the opposite parties i.e. the respondents herein, despite receipt of notice.

 

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2023, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.C.C.358 of 2022.

 

3. The appellant herein, i.e. the original complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Commission alleging that the respondents were deficient in rendering service towards the complainant and prayed for necessary directions to pay him to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the costs of the equipment + Rs.1,50,000/- for installation of solar panel + Rs.1,80,000/- due to excess payment of electric bill along with cost of diesel consumption for operation of generator + Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency of service + Rs.2,00,000/- for pain, agony and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- towards the costs of litigation, in total Rs.18,80,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakh, eighty thousand) only from the opposite parties i.e. the respondents herein (here-in-after referred to as Company).   

 

4. Facts in brief, are that, it is true that the appellant-complainant is a business organization involved in selling petroleum products. With the object to reduce his electricity bill, the appellant-complainant purchased solar system panel from the respondent-Company. It was installed accordingly. During the warranty period, it became non-operational due to defect in the product. The appellant-complainant had sent notice to the respondent-Company, but they did not remove the defects. Even they did not make any attempt to make it operational and in working condition. 

 

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the complaint application before the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala. The learned District Commission having receipt of the complaint as well as considering their reply to the complaint held that the appellant is not a consumer because it involves in commercial transactions.

 

6. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the findings of the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agaratala in connection with complaint case No.CC.358 of 2022, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

 

7. We have gone through the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. We have also heard Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is a consumer related case and to fulfil the object of the act, the District Commissions, State Commission and National Commission have the liability to dispose of the case expeditiously. We have taken into consideration that the respondents despite receipt of notices have not appeared before this Commission. We have perused the statements made by the respondents in their written objection filed before the learned District Commission. Even if, the respondents could appear before this Commission, but they would not have developed their case than that of what has been stated before the learned District Commission. So, point to be considered in this appeal is that whether the appellant is a consumer or not.

 

8. We have kept in mind that the appellant is a business organization, but the solar panel/plant the appellant wanted to install is not for any trading or selling purpose, but for its own use and for this reason, it comes within the purview of the definition of ‘consumer’ as embodied under Section 2 (7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

9. Sub-Section (7) of Section 2 clearly emphasizes that a person who obtains any goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer. Here, at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the appellant has installed the solar system panel in his petrol pump only to reduce the electricity bills and for his own use absolutely. Explanation (a) of sub Section (7) of Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly stipulates that “the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment…..” The appellant’s attempt to reduce the electricity bill is a part of his effort towards the betterment of his earning capacity, which ultimately would help him to improve his condition of life.

 

10. The findings of the learned District Commission that the complaint petition as well as the documentary evidences clearly speak that the solar system panel was installed for the commercial purpose only and not for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, is, according to us, erroneous and is liable to be quashed. For this, we may un-hesitantly hold that the complainant/appellant is a consumer. 

 

11. Thereafter, we have examined the entitlement of the appellant to get compensation as prayed for in the complaint petition. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant-complainant had suffered substantial loss for not removing/curing the defects in the solar panel supplied by the respondent-opposite parties. Despite repeated requests the respondent/supplier of the solar panel failed to respond. This amounts to clear deficiency of service. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only which is the selling price of the solar panel and another Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand) only against installation charge of the said solar panel. We further direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only along with 6% interest to be paid to the appellant-complainant within a period of 3(three) months from today and further a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only to be paid to the appellant-complainant for dragging the appellant into the litigation.

 

12.In the light of above discussions, we allow the instant appeal and the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala stands set aside and quashed.