DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of April 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/04/2012
(C.C.No.77/2012)
M.A.Sheriff,
S/o.M.A.M.Gani,
Ghani Motors,
Fort Maidan,
Kunnathurmedu (PO),
Palakkad – 678 013 - Complainant
(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)
V/s
Infra Elevators,
35/2984,
Opp.St.John Bapist Church,
Palli Pradhakshina Road,
Palli Nada,
Palarivattom,
Kochi – 682 025
(Rep.by Manager – Marketing)
(Authorised Signatory) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief :
The complainant is the owner of a new multi complex commercial complex building situated at I.M.A. junction, Palakkad. The building is situated at the heart of Palakkad at I.M.A. junction and it is a pucca commercial complex, having four floors, each floor having a plinth area of more than 7,000 Sq.Ft. On the ground floor, Hero Honda showroom, ATM of South Indian Bank and various other show rooms are functioning. The building is situated in between two major roads and is exactly located where three roads meet and is a very busy commercial area and a business centre.
The complainant placed an order for a lift / elevator to be installed in this building complex and the opposite party has accepted the offer. Accordingly a pucca agreement was also executed between the parties on 21/11/06 embodying the terms and conditions regarding the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the elevator to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and a work order was also issued on 27/11/2006. The delivery period was fixed as 36 weeks from the date of the agreement and installation, testing the commissioning of the plant including obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. i.e. from the Electrical Inspectorate as well. Permission from the Electrical Inspectorate was to be obtained within 10 weeks thereafter. The total consideration for all these requirements including the cost of the plant and machinery was fixed at Rs.5,75,000/- Out of which the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.5,65,000/- leaving a balance of Rs.10,000/- only. Again out of this balance of Rs.10,000/- a sum of Rs.3,250/- was also paid to the transporting company as advised by the opposite party. The opposite party has failed to obtain the approval from the Electrical Inspectorate, though the elevator was installed at the premises of the complainant long back. This conduct of the opposite party is nothing but an unfair trade practice also as a service provider and a gross deficiency in service as well.
Because of the inordinate delay caused by the opposite party in obtaining permission the lift cannot be functioned and used and hence very many prospective tenants and clients those who have visited the vacant premises in the building for their commercial purposes have subsequently withdrawn and abandoned as the elevator is still not functioning.
Hence the complaint and complainant claims Rs.15 lakhs as compensation from the opposite parties.
Matter was posted for hearing on admission. Complainant represented. On going through the whole complaint we find that complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as complainant cannot be termed as a consumer as per the definition of Consumer provided under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act defines consumer as a person who
(i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for, consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;
Here the complainant has specifically stated that the lift / elevator is purchased for commercial purpose. So complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss the complaint with direction to approach appropriate court for relief.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
