Order-8.
Date-08/09/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case in short, is that in the year 2015 OP1 approached the complainant representing as the authorized agent of the OP2 for purchasing some air-conditioners for the residential/office space of the complainant. Being satisfied with such representation of the office staff of the OP1 the complainant placed order of supply and installation of 6 air conditioners at the office of the complainant on payment of money on 20-04-2015 and 02-05-2015. The complainant had paid Rs.2,50,000/- in total to OP1 but OP1 refused and neglected to supply and install the AC machine at the Office of the complainant situated at 4, B.B.D Bag Street, Kolkata – 1. OP1 also raised further bill of Rs.1,09,188/- dated 10-06-2015 to the complainant. The complainant raised objection of such a bill. OP1, however, ignoring such objection supplied only four sets of Mitsubishi AC out of six. The complainant also sent a lawyer notice to the OP but OP1 denied all the allegations. It is alleged that the complainant suffered business loss for supply of three AC machines in place of six sets. Hence, this case.
Neither of the OPs has appeared in this case nor filed any written version and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled over the documents on record namely Photostat copy of challans, money receipts, proforma invoices and other documents on record as filed from the side of the complainant.
From the proforma invoice we find that the complainant had ordered for purchase and installation of 6 pieces of Air-conditioners of Mitsubishi brand and had paid Rs.2,50,000/- out of Rs.3,59,188/- in favour of the OP. It is alleged by the complainant that OP1 initially had supplied three sets of Air-conditioners out of six and demanded more money for installation and supply of remaining pieces of ACs. We find some inconsistencies in the version of the complainant as stipulated in the petition of complainant and that of adduced in Examination-in-Chief. Complainant has stated in petition of complaint that OP supplied only four sets of Mitsubishi Acs out of six but in his Evidence on Affidavit he has stated that OP1 has supplied three pieces of Air-conditioners out of six pieces of Air-conditioners. Be that as it may, from the proforma invoice it is transpiring that the total amount for six sets of ACs was Rs.3,59,188/- and the amount received by OP1 is Rs.2,50,000/- and we find that a balance amount of Rs.1,09,188/- is to be paid by the complainant to OP1. But there is no document before us that the complainant has paid the remaining amount of Rs.1,09,188/-. It appears that complainant had paid Rs.2,50,00/- out of Rs.3,59,188/-. We also find a letter on record addressed to the lawyer of the complainant from the side of the OP1 for payment of the remaining amount for reinitiate the job and complete it. But no document is forthcoming to us that the complainant has made payment of Rs.1,09,188/- till this date. The complainant has specific case that he purchased those Air-conditioners for his office space in the petition of complaint. He has also stated categorically in para 7 that the complainant has suffered huge business loss for non-installation of ACs the office of the complainant. It appears that the complainant has a big set up and he purchased six ACs for commercial purpose. Complainant has also stated so in his very petition of compliant. In C.P. Act u/s.2(1)(d)(ii) it has been envisaged that a person when avails services for any commercial purpose is not a consumer. We find that the complainant has purchased AC machines for commercial purpose for business and accordingly we do not think that the complainant is a consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act. Person availing services for commercial purpose cannot be considered as consumer under C.P. Act. Services hired or availed for commercial purposes after amendment on 15-03-2003 does not fall within the meaning of consumer. [IV (2014) CPJ 177 (NC) relied upon]. The instant case is not maintainable on this ground also.
Moreover, we find that the complainant has not made payment of Rs.1,09,188/- to OP1 and accordingly the remaining 2/3 machines were not installed by OP1. We do not find any deficiency of service also on the part of the OP1, as such. Accordingly, the instant case merits no success.
The points as above are thus decided in the negative against the complainant.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.
We make no order as to cost.
