For the Petitioner : Mrs. A.V. Rao, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : N E M O

Dated, the 15th day of July, 2010

ORDER

'Challenge in these proceedings u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer ..2.. Protection Act, 1986 is to the order dated 18.01.10 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 473/07. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the opposite parties challenging the order dated 21.12.06 passed by the District Forum II, Vijayawa in consumer dispute No. 54/06 by which order the said District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and had directed the opposite party No.1, i.e, manufacturer of the vehicle in question to replace the defective vehicle with defect free one or in alternative to refund the value of the vehicle with a further direction to the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. The State Commission has allowed the said appeal of the opposite parties and has set aside the order passed by the District Forum primarily on the ground that the complainant did not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘Consumer” as appearing in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by observing as under:- “ The respondent society is not a voluntary organization functioning on no profit motive as it can be seen from the averments of the complaint that the bus purchased is a school bus meant for conveyance of students. The respondent society ..3.. having purchased the school bus for its activity of generating profit by means of conveyance of the students by the bus, it cannot be said that the respondent society is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1) (d) (i) of the C.P. Act. The appellants had taken a categorical objection that the school bus was purchased for being used for conveyance of the students by collecting conveyance charges from the students. The respondent society has not denied the said contention of the appellants and as such it has rendered itself fall within the mischief of commercial purpose as defined in 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act.” 2. We have heard Mrs. A. Venkatesra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order passed by the State Commission primarily on the ground that it is based on wholly erroneous view and interpretation of section 2(1) (d) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supports the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that the complainant being a profit making educational institution had purchased the bus for ferrying the students for which they were charging certain fees from the students. ..4.. 3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. We may simply notice that the consumer dispute raised by the complainant before the District Forum related to certain defects in a mini/school bus which they had purchased from the opposite parties and in which they noticed several defects within a short period of the purchase of the bus. The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer of the bus as also the dealer. It was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the bus as alleged and that the complainant was not entitled to any relief on that ground. The question, answer to which will decide the fate of this revision petition is whether the complainant is ‘consumer’ or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This issue has been considered by this Commission as well as by the Apex Court in number of decisions. The complainant being an educational institution cannot be said that it is running a transport business or that it had acquired the bus for commercial use or with the object of earning profit. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the purchaser, Sree Venkateswara Educational Society had purchased the bus in question for a commercial purpose and, therefore, it falls outside the purview of ‘consumer’ as defined in the ..5.. Act even if they were collecting some fees from the students or their parents for providing transport service. We are of the considered view that the finding recorded by the State Commission is erroneous and is not in consonance with the settled legal position. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint on that ground alone without touching on the merit of the matter. In these circumstances, it has become necessary to remand the matter to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh. 4. In the result, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The matter is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 16.08.10 for seeking further directions in the matter.