CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.215/2015

M/S ONS INTERACTIVE SOLUTIONS,

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

REGD. OFFICE AT : G-4, NDSE-II,

NEW DELHI

…………. COMPLAINANTS                                                                                         

VS.

M/S KAJARIA CERAMICS LIMITED,

THROUGH IS DIRECTOR/MANAGER,

J1/B1 (EXTN.), MOHAN CO-OP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

(OPP. BADARPUR THERMAL POWER STATION),

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044

………….. RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 13.10.2015

O R D E R

Complainant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act.  Complainant’s company’s site was under construction for which complainant required the floor tiles.  Complainant placed an order with OP for supply of vitrified premium tiles and paid Rs.4,38,126/- towards full an final payment for supply of tiles.

It is further stated that OP was to supply 548 boxes of the tiles however only 546 boxes were delivered out of which the tiles in 7 boxes were fully or partially broken.  The tiles were found to be of substandard quality.  Complainant asked OP to replace the tiles.  But needful was not done even despite service of legal notice dated 09.04.2015.  Complainant has prayed for refund aforesaid amount alongwith interest as well as payment and also asked for Rs.,2 lakhs towards compensation with 24% interest  p.a.

We have heard Ld. counsel for complaint as to how complainant is a ‘consumer’.

Admittedly complainant is Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act.  On the fae of it, complainant is not a ‘consumer’.  It is submitted by Ld. counsel for complainant that the tiles were required for the office of complainant as such complainant is a ‘consumer’.  Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines ‘consumer’ as under:-

“(d) ‘consumer’, means any person who –

1. 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 party 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; or resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

[Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.]”

            The tiles were brought by complainant company which is indulging in commercial activities.

Hence it is useful to refer to case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant Vs G.S. Fertilizers 11(20132) CPJ 72(NC)  where it was held that if a company purchases car for use of its Managing Director, it will not qualify to be a ‘consumer’.  In another case Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd. 1(2014) CPJ 332(NC) – In that case software has been purchased by a Pvt. Ltd. company and not by any individual.  It has nowhere pleaded that Managing Director is running business in the name of the complainant for earning the livelihood.  Complainant was held to be not a ‘consumer’.

For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that complaint is not  a ‘consumer’ hence the complaint is dismissed

The copy of order be sent to complainants and OPs by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

         (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                     (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT