Shri.  Avinash V. Prabhune, Member –

            Heard Ld. Counsel for Complainant on dtd 20.10.2021. The matter was adjourned on subsequent dates due to the requests of counsel for making additional submissions with documents on the issue of admission of complaint. Perused the Complaint with all documents.

1.                     In the present complaint, the Complainant is the private limited company involved in the business of manufacturing of PVC pipes & fittings. The opposite party is in the business of supply of industrial machinery set up & services thereof..

2.                     Complainant is regular consumer of OP. OP had supplied various machine parts on 12.12.2020 against order from Complainant. Complainant noticed that one machine part, viz, 2” (60 MM OD) Standard Mandreal 9Bi-Axial) supplied by OP was not as per requirement of the Complainant, therefore, Complainant had returned same to OP on 09.02.2021 for replacement. OP did not take any corrective actions for providing replacement of the machine part even after repeated communication & receipt legal notice from the Complainant. Complainant filed present complaint by alleging deficiency in services of the OP. Complainant prayed for issuing directions to OP for redelivering machine parts & claimed compensations & costs for the suffering.

3.                     It can be seen that Complainant is in business of manufacturing of PVC pipes & fittings. The purpose behind purchasing machine parts from the OP is certainly to advance and promote business activities of the company. It can be seen that the complainant had not given any averments in the Complaint regarding running business for earning his livelihood. Complainant had failed to submit details of employees engaged in the business activities at the manufacturing unit of the Complainant despite of ample opportunity given by this commission. The said information was necessary in view of the principle laid through illustrations referred in Hon Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,”  judgment about purchasing auto rickshaw, truck, lathe machine by an individual & using same for earning livelihood by way of self employment. It can be seen that complainant is earning profits by undertaking its business activities; therefore, it is crystal clear that the purchase of machine parts & services of the OP were hired or availed by the complainant for a commercial purpose. To understand the issue more elaborately, it is necessary to refer Section 2(7)(ii) of The Consumer Protection Act 2019, which reads as under :

Section 2 (7) (ii) "consumer" means any person who—

(i)    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 partly 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

(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.

            In view of the above discussions & nature of commercial transactions /activities involved in the present matter, Commission is of the firm opinion that present Complainant is not entitled to be considered as ‘Consumer’ within definition of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

4.                     Commission would like to refer observations of the Apex Court in the case of “Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583,” wherein, It was categorically observed by the Apex Court that the entire Consumer protection act revolves around the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. The act provides for “business to consumer” disputes and not for “business to business” disputes. It was specifically mentioned that the act provides not for “business to business” disputes. It means it is not expected under the provisions of the act that both parties are running a business. If that is so then dispute between “business to business” is not expected to be covered under the act.

5

.                       Hon NCDRC, New Delhi in the almost similar matter of “M/S Xerox India Limited V/s. M/S Dalven Printers, First Appeal No 228 of 2007, decided on 14.092012”  where in,  applicability & interpretation of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) has been elaborately discussed with the support of Hon Supreme court judgment in the “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583” & subsequent amendment  in the Consumer Protection  Act of 62 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 15.3.03. Similar provisions were made applicable even under Section 2(7) (i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In view the facts & circumstances of the present case, it is clear that Complainant had purchased the printing machines for commercial purpose & to cater/augment its  business which is a commercial activity, therefore, the complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ within the definition of 'Consumer' given in Section 2(7) (i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

6

.                       Before parting with case, it is matter of records that Complaint was filed on 05.10.2021 before Commission. It was listed for admission hearing on 20.10.2021 but adjourned to 28.10.2021,02.11.2021, 16.11.2021, 23.11.20121, 02.12.2021, 14.12.2021 as per the request of Counsel for complainant. but Complainant’s counsel failed to submit relevant information till date. It can be seen that the delay in deciding admissibility of the complaint was solely due to the requests of the Complainant; therefore, time sought by Complainant through adjournments has to be deducted for computing the period of 21 days provided for admission of Complaint as per Section 35(2) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint cannot be deemed to be admitted.

7.                     In view of the above facts & circumstances, present Complaint cannot be entertained & deserves to be dismissed, hence dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the Complainant to seek redressal of its grievance before the appropriate court/forum in accordance with the law.

ORDER

1)         Complaint is dismissed at admission stage.

2)         No order as to costs.

3)         Certified copy of this order be supplied to Complainant free of cost.