Order no. 2             

The matter is taken up for admission hearing.

The complainant is a company under the Company Act 1956.The complainant states that a service agreement had been executed by the complainant and the opposite party on 11.09.2023 for construction of 6 (six) wooden rooms with attached bathrooms, doors, windows, floors and ceiling duly completed with all fittings and fixtures at the Resort of the Complainant namely Mousuni Beach Canvas. The agreement was based on the assurance of the opposite party of having previous experience.

Despite the assurance and commitments of the opposite party for completing the work within the time frame as per agreement dated 11.09.2023. The opposite party failed and neglected to handover the said rooms to the satisfaction of the complainant and handed over 05 (five) wooden rooms in December, 2023. The complainant had paid Rs.20,15,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs fifteen thousand) only on various dates from 19.10.2023 to 29.12.2023. In addition to the online payment the complainant had already made off line payments of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only to the opposite party through 18 (eighteen) payment receipts.  

The complainant states that, thereafter several deficiencies in service had been identified by the complainant like leakage in pipeline, inadequate wood work, substandard bathroom fittings etc. and in spite of several communications the opposite party failed to complete the work as per the agreed standard. The complainant suffered huge loss. Also due to the aforesaid deficiency in service the complainant received several complaints from the guests and the business of the company was very much affected and thereby incurring huge loss. The complainant through his Ld. Advocate made a representation before the opposite party on 09.04.2024 to pay a sum of Rs.32,15,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs fifteen thousand) only for the loss suffered by the complainant but till date the opposite party has deliberately failed and neglected to pay the said amount to the complainant. Being aggrieved there by the instant consumer complaint has been filed, praying for the reliefs to refund the money paid i.e. Rs.20,15,000/- (Rupees twenty lakkhs fifteen thousand) only and further cost incurred of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) only. The complainant also prayed for Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) only towards loss of revenue suffered by the complainant for the deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only towards compensation for loss of goodwill and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only towards litigation cost.

We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and perused all the records and documents attached with the consumer complaint. On perusal of the same it appears that the complainant is a company under the Companies Act, 1956 and has approached this Commission by way of claiming that under the definition of section 2(31) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 they come under the definition of “Person”.

In this context the stipulation provided as regards who should be treated as a consumer under the section 7(ii) reads as follows :-

(7) “consumer” means any person who-

“(i) ......................................................

(ii) hires or avails of any service 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 service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”

On perusal of the complaint it is abundantly clear that the complainant had placed an order for a wooden and carpentry service with the opposite party for a huge amount of money. As per the stipulation in the definition of consumer it is clearly stated that any person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose shall not be treated as a consumer.

Therefore, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant consumer complaint.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.