JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant is a private limited company registered under Companies Act, 1956 was carrying on business under name and style Varun Interex Private Limited, having its registered office at C-3/3, Glliander House, 8, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S.- Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001.

          Complainant required to install a Hydraulic elevator at the branch office of the company at Bajoria Niwas 21, Chakraberia Lane, Kolkata-700020 and placed order for the Hydraulic elevator along with wooden cabin and other facilities specially described in the schedule having its speed of 0.63 meter per second on 02.06.2011 to the op upon the quotation submitted by the op on 27.05.2010.

          On placement of the order of the op after receiving the amount of Rs.5,60,000/-, specially described in schedule B as per the agreement did not supply and installed the said Hydraulic elevator, specially described in scheduled place but partly supplied materials at 123, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-700006 and no civil or electrical work is yet started.

          So, the complainant wrote a letter on 10.05.2012 to op stating that the fact and non supply of lift which though already received Rs.6,50,000/- but op refused to accept that letter.

          No doubt op is a renowned company for selling Hydraulic elevator and the representative of the company convinced that complainant to place order relying upon their document they placed the order but ultimately op did not install the Hydraulic elevator for which the present complainant has no other alternative but to file this complaint before this Forum for relief.

          On the other hand op by filing this written version has submitted that the complainant/company used the lift for commercial purposes and it is used for his own business and further complainant is a private limited company, so, complainant is not a consumer and moreover the contract in between the complainant and op is a commercial contract for installation of elevator and there was arbitration clause in the contract, as such, the complainant had no cause of action before the Ld. Forum and further mentioned that this Forum has no power or jurisdiction to decide the same.

          It is further submitted that the op requested the complainant to supply necessary documents including building sanctioned plan, registered Deed, tax receipts etc. amongst others for the purpose of granting permission to erect a lift as per provisions of West Bengal Lifts and Elevators Act, 1955 together with West Bengal Lifts Rules, 1958 but the complainant on repeated occasions failed to produce the aforesaid documents and as such the stability certificate and some others which are required but same could not be supplied by the complainant and further staff of the ops were arrested for working in unsanctioned building.

          Moreover op has denied all other allegations and further submitted that the lift was not supplied as per contract for want of production of valid papers of the building.  Practically the claim of the complainant should be decided by Civil Court.  It is further submitted that Hydraulic elevator could not be installed for several dispute in respect of extra charge of the buildings, so the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and the present case should be dismissed.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          After hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the admitted fact that complainant is a private limited company and truth is that lift was installed by the op as per quotation and order of the complainant in his business complex having its registered office at C-3/3, Glliander House, 8, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S.- Hare Street, Kolkata – 700001and no doubt that contract was made by the complainant/company and no doubt in the instant case cost of the installation of Hydraulic elevator including elevator machine operation is for the aforesaid the complainant/company and the cost of maintenance and operation and depreciation of the said elevator were charged to the profit and loss account to the complainant/company and expenses on the ground of the operation and maintenance of the said lift is also part of the Balance Sheet, cost of production manufactured by the company and sold by the complainant.  This lift is being used for commercial purposes for which it was for commercial purpose.

          Further complainant failed to produce sanctioned paper of the said buildings for seeking permission to erect the lift in the buildings before Chief Electrical Inspector when complainant placed order for office use elevator.

          After considering the Dictionary meaning of the word in the definition Section 2(1)(b)(I) consumer-commercial purpose we find that the intention of the legislation is well understood and for which the exclusion clause is included and expression consumer means any person who buys goods for the purpose of being used in any activity engaged on the large scale for the purpose of making profit cannot be taken into account as consumer since the present lift was purchased by the company for commercial purpose because the lift is used for his and their employees and it is clear that the cost is paid from the fund of the company and it is not for personal use or for domestic use.

          Moreover after proper study of the provision of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act 1986 we find that the present spirit of the definition is to deny the benefit of the act to the person purchasing goods either for the purpose of company use or for profit making activity engaged on large scale.  So, purchase of goods for consumption or company used for manufacturer of goods or commodities on a large scale for making profit fall outside this scope of the definition consumer.  So, the ruling as referred by the complainant is applicable for Insurance claim only.

          Fact remains that intention of the legislation is to restrict the benefit of the act to the consumer purchasing goods either for their own consumption for even used for personal livelihood.   In this regard we have relied upon one ruling reported in Synco Textile Pvt.Ltd. – Vs – Srips Cotton Pvt. Ltd. 1991 (1) CPJ 499 NC wherefrom we have gathered that purchase of lift and installation of lift was clearly for enabling the op company to carry its commercial activity and for the purpose of trade and it would be used by his employees.  When in the building there are stair cases and practically lift was installed for the purpose of the higher officers and others and it is stand by arrangement when in the building stair cases are for 1^st floor, 2^nd floor etc.  but complainant is a big sugar company.  So, in the eye of law the present complainant is not a consumer and fact remains the elevator was installed for the purpose of commercial purpose and it was stand by provision for the official of the complainants company and other guest when this is a stand by provision when there are stair cases in the said complainant’s office.  The present complainant is not consumer and further as per settled law a private limited company is not entitled to file any complaint as consumer.

          In the result we are convinced that the complainant is not a consumer in the true sense, thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost.  But fact remains that this big business man harassed only to get relief by paying low fees before this Forum filed this complaint to harass the op when he is limited company so complainant shall have to pay a penal cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited to this Forum within one month otherwise penal action shall be taken against them.