BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : ATHYDERABAD.

CC.No.66/2006

Between:

M/s.Hyderabad Insulation’s Corporation,

Rep. by Managing Partner,

M.A.Muqtader Baig, 

Off: at 11-4-6540/15/5,

1^stMasab Tank Road,

Hyderabad

…Complainant.

And

1.M/s.Novopan Industries (P) Limited,

  Hyderabad

2.The Branch Manager,

…Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Complainant  

Counsel for the Opp.Parties       

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.        

2.        HyderabadBangalore.              

3.            Karnataka, as such the Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.  st st        Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.         

5.        

i)                                           Whether the complainant is consumer as defined in Sec.2(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act?

ii)                                          Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

iii)                                        Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try the case?

iv)                                        Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount?

6.        HyderabadBangalore.  

7.        th  

8.        

 “Any complaints of shortages, damages, defects and whatsoever nature on the product will be entertained only if received within seven days from the date of recipe of goods.”

The goods were supplied on 27.01.2006, 27.01.2006 and 07.02.2006 under three invoices, vide Ex.A.2 to A.4, whereas the complaint was first made on 05.09.2006, eight months thereafter alleging defective supply under Ex.A.7.     Civil Court

9.          Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institutereported in

           “In Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = 1995 (3) SCC 583, the Apex Court considered the dictionary meaning of the word ‘commerce’ and explained what is meant by ‘commercial purpose’ by giving illustrations. 

            Broadly affirming the said view and more particularly with a view to obviate any confusion – the expression ‘large               

“Since causes of resale have been separately referred to, it becomes obvious that the words ‘for any commercial purpose’ are intended to cover cases other than those of resale of the concerned goods.  

10.      2005 (2) ALD (Cons) 26 (NC),

           If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

11.         

           2(d)(i) “Consumer” means any person who –

The definition and expression of ‘consumer’ as defined in Sec.2(d) (i) of Consumer Protection Act excludes from its purview “a person who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose”. 

12.        

13.             Complaining after 9 months that too after executing the work by cutting the material into blocks etc. has no meaning.       

14.      Hyderabad, evidenced from the Invoices and the agreement, we are of the opinion that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, though we hold that the complainant is not a consumer. 

15.      Civil Court       

16.       

17.       Civil Court, if it so advised, and the proceedings taken before this Commission could be reckoned for the purpose of limitation. 

PRESIDENT         

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opp.Parties  Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant: