Date of Filing: 02/08/2011

        Date of Order: 20/08/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 20^th DAY OF AUGUST 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1432 OF 2011

M/s. Adarsh Developers,

No.10, Vittal Mallya Road,

Bangalore-60 001,

Rep. by its Partner B.M.Karunesh.

(Rep. by Advocate Manjunath.K.N)                                          Complainant.

-V/s-

M/s. Water Solutions,

No.523/A, 19^th Main Service Road,

HSR Layout, 3^rd Sector,

Bangalore-560 012.

Rep. by its Proprietor                                                          Opposite party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

            The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, are necessary:-

            The complainant placed a purchase order on 04.07.2009 requesting the opposite party to supply one set of CRI make 30 HP submersible pumps and raised in favour of the opposite party Rs.5,19,979.20 paise.  Again the opposite party supplied one set of submersible pump as per the purchase order dated: 10.06.2010.  In the month of October-2010 the pumps supplied by the opposite party started malfunctioning and stopped performing in the given working conditions.  The complainant requested the opposite party and also sent e-mail to know the working conditions of the irrigation pumps and to provide a stand by pump immediately and to repair the said pump and to replace the defective pump.  It fell to the deaf ears of the opposite party.  The complainant learnt that the opposite party is not the authorized dealer of the manufacturing company of sub miscible pump.  A notice was also issued.  Hence the complaint.

2.        Heard.

3.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is prima facie case to proceed against the opposite party?
2. What order?

4.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A):In the Negative

Point (B)       :           As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (B):-

5.        The complaint is summarized supra.  The same be read here again.  According to the complaint and documents the complainant had purchased submersible pumps from the opposite party for its business purposes and not for any personal consumption.  When a specific question was put to the counsel for the complainant that for what purpose the bore well was installed by the opposite party and for what purpose it has been utilized by the complainant, the counsel submitted that, it is for the office purpose and the business purpose of the complainant bore well was got installed.  That means it is a commercial transaction.  In a case between Birla Technologies Limited –V/s- Neutral Glass And Allied Industries Limited in 2011 CTJ 121 the Apex Court has ruled thus:-

“If the goods are purchased for the commercial purpose of earning more profits then there can be no dispute that even the services offered along with them have to be for the same purpose.”

Further in a case between Techno Mukund Constructions –V/s- Mercedes Benz India Limited & Another reported in 2011 CTJ 387 (CP)(NCDRC) the National Commission has ruled thus:-

“The intention of Parliament in excluding persons purchasing goods for commercial purpose from the definition of the expression ‘Consumer’ is to impose a restriction that the special remedy before the Consumer forums can be invoked only by ordinary consumers buying goods for their private and personal use and consumption and not business organizations buying goods for commercial purpose.”

That is to say if the consumer protection act is available only to the regular ordinary consumer who purchase the materials or take service for their personal consumption and not for the commercial transaction and not for the commercial activities.  Hence there is no necessity to proceed further.

6.        Hence the complainant is not a consumer and as such there is no necessity to proceed further in the matter.  Nowhere in the complaint or in the documents it is stated that the business concern of the complainant has purchased this submersible pumps for other then business purpose.  Hence it means the complainant is not a consumer and the consumer protection act is not applicable.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20^th  Day of August 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                             PRESIDENT