Judgment : Dt. 3.4.2017

            This petition of complaint is filed under Sec.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, by Angel Television Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, through the authorized representative namely Bijoy Bhusan Pandey alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs (1) M/s Luminous Water Technologies (P) Ltd., (2) M/s INNOVATIVE PEST & PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, (3) The CEO, M/s Luminous Water Technologies (P) Ltd. & (4) Sri Prasanta Agarwal.

            The Complainant, by a resolution passed by Board of Resolution dt. 1.7.2016, has been authorized to file the instant complaint against the OPs. The Complainant by filing the instant petition of complaint has stated that on or about 13.11.2013 one sales representative of the respondent No.1 visited the office of the Complainant and proposed to install water purifier which would deliver 100% pure drinking water for the commercial establishment of the Complainant with a strength of around  22-25 staff. The Complainant Pvt. Ltd. Company agreed to that proposal and accordingly, a purifier was purchased and installed in the said commercial establishment o n 14.11.2013 at a consideration of Rs.13,500/-. It is further, stated by the Complainant that the said purifier started giving trouble within two days from the date of installation of it for which the complainant lodged complaints on 16.11.2013, 12.12.2013, 1.3.2014, 8.3.2014, 19.3.2014, 25.3.2014 and 31.3.2014, with the OPs. Subsequently, on several occasions the Complainant made contact to the OP No.1 for removal of defect of the said purifier in response to which the OP No.1 sent technicians and service engineers but no effective steps were taken by them and, as a result, the defect has been remained as it is. Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for direction upon the OPs, for replacement of the said defective purifier by new one with same description and install the same under supervision of an expert and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant towards damage.

            The OP No.1, 3 & 4 have filed written statement denying and disputing the material allegations as made out in the petition of complaint against them stating, inter alia, that initially the complainant ordered for an unit of water purifier which was meant for usage of domestic purpose but fact  remained that the Complainant asked the authorized representative of OP No.1 to install the same in his office having strength of 25-30 persons, although it was told to the Complainant that the said unit was fit for domestic usage and a larger unit than that would be appropriate for commercial usage which the Complainant was asked to install. It is, further, stated that during the warranty period of one year i.e. from 14.11.2013 to 13.11.2014, the Complainant lodged several complaints with the OP No.1 and receiving those complaints, the OP No.1 took step to remove difficulties even replaced the said water purifier by a new one of higher capacity and suggested the Complainant to maintain proper water pressure by connecting the overhead tank to the water purifier by installing a pipeline, but the Complainant ignored the suggestion.

            According to the OP No.1, 3 & 4 they have no deficiency in providing service to the Complainant since they acted upon as per terms of the warranty.

            The OP No.2 filed a separate written version stating, inter alia, that the OP No.2 was a mere distributor of OP No.1 and whenever a purchaser placed order for water purifier the OP No.1 used to direct the OP No.2 to deliver and install the purifier to the purchaser place which the OP No.2 used to do accordingly. According to the OP No.2 they have been impleaded as party to the case unnecessarily.

Decision with reasons

            On perusal of the petition of complaint, it appears that the authorized representative, the Complainant himself has averred that the Complainant is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956. It is, further averred by the Complainant that the water purifier in dispute was installed in the office of the Complainant which is a commercial establishment with a strength of 20-25 staff. Now, the point to be determined first that whether the Complainant can be considered as a consumer under the OP? To arrive at a decision, we rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1(2014) CPJ 332 (NC) [Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd.] wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that the goods in dispute was purchased by the Managing Director was for commercial purpose and therefore the Complainant is not a consumer. Further, it is also well settled that a complaint filed by a private Ltd. Company is not entertainable under the C.P.Act.

            Relying upon such decision we have no hesitation to assert that the Complainant is not a consumer under the OPs as per provision of Sec.2 (1)(d) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

            Hence,

ordered

            That CC/367/2016 is dismissed on contest against OP but no order as to cost.