By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

1. Case of the complainant:-

            Complainant is the owner of Saloos Aluminium Fabrication and till 2016, he was selling the doors of opposite party company having 10 years warranty. But some of the doors purchased by complainant from opposite party were defective and complainant informed about this to opposite party. Then opposite party assured that the complaint raised by complainant is genuine, hence he will change the door. As per the assurance given by the opposite party, complainant returned the door to opposite party’s company. But the owner of the house from where the complainant detached the door created problems with the complainant because that owner was residing in that house.  Due to the continuous request from complainant, opposite party return the door to complainant.  But complainant realised that opposite party returned the door by painting the old door for getting a fresh look. Due to the pressure from the customer of complainant, he provided a new door to that customer by paying from his own pocket. Then again door of another customer was also damaged and complainant called the Managing director and staff of opposite party on 29/03/2019 but they shouted at complainant by using filthy words. Then again complainant adjusted a new door and gave that to the customer of complainant. This is the usual practice of opposite party and so many other persons have the same complaint against opposite party.  Not only did the opposite party not replace the door, but when asked about this the opposite party abused the complainant by using filthy language. There is clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence this complaint. 

2.   Prayer of the complainant is that  he is entitled to get  Rs. 2200/- for the economic loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for  the mental agony and hardships suffered by him  due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  from the side of opposite party .

3.     On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and notice served on him and he appeared before this Commission through   his counsel and filed version.

4.        In their version opposite party contented that  they are  the dealers of design

door products like moulded skin door, FRP moulded door  and wooden door and they have  nearly 500 and more customers  all over Kerala and  they always provide bill and voucher as per the  whole sale price of the doors. They again stated that they will provide guarantee card having customer’s name and address and complainant can produce that bill provided by opposite party if he had purchased that door from opposite party shop. Moreover complainant   did not mention   the date of purchase and name of customer etc of the door mentioned in the complaint which was purchased on 2016 by complainant. Hence opposite party denied all the allegations levelled against him by the complainant in the complaint. In Ext A5 document, the account ledger from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017 produced by complainant, there clearly mentioned that there is nearly Rs.22,072/- was pending to give to opposite party by  complainant. When opposite party asked to complainant for paying the balance amount, then complainant approached this commission with a fabricated complaint. Opposite party again stated that in Ext.A5 document, complainant himself written in his own hand writing that bill was closed. They again contended that they never threatened complainant. Complainant never produced the photographs of damaged doors along with complaint. It is easy for him to produce the picture of the doors.  Hence they denied all the averments and the allegations levelled by complainant against them in the complaint.  They again stated that when purchasing the door from them they gave directions regarding the fitting of the door and regarding the taking care of the door and they pasted that direction in the upper portion of the door. Complainant did not follow that directions given by opposite party in writing. They again stated that, they already gave direction to complainant to put primer paint after fitting the door.  Otherwise there will be small holes will come and it will affect the long life of the doors.

5.      But after filing the above version on 25/02/2020, they again filed an additional version on 25/03/2022. In a later stage that means   two years after filing the version,    opposite party filed additional version and stated that the complaint filed by complainant is never come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In the additional version they stated that complainant bought the doors for sale   and not for his personal use.  So that process of buying and reselling the door is a commercial activity. Hence complaint is not maintainable.  Hence complaint may be dismissed.

6.        In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5.Ext.A1 is the copy of guarantee card given by opposite party to complainant .Ext.A2 is the colour photograph of the door, Ext.A3 is the colour photograph of another door.  Ext.A4 is the colour photograph of another door, Ext. A5 is the copy of Account Ledger/Statement of Accounts for the period from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017. Thereafter opposite party filed chief affidavit on 15/11/2021 and on 25/03/2022 they filed additional chief affidavits without documents. 

7.         Heard complainant and opposite party. Perused affidavit and documents.  The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act  ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
3. Reliefs and cost.

8.  Point No.1  :-

       The case of the complainant is that, he was selling  doors having 10 years warranty which are purchased from opposite party . Complainant has stated that one of the customers of complainant had complained about the doors given by complainant to that customer. Those doors were purchased by the complainant from   opposite party herein. He again stated that on 29/03/2019, he called the opposite party to complained about the damage of the door of another customer and opposite party shouted at him. From the above points we are on the opinion that complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986 & 2019.The case of the complainant is genuine and the doors purchased from opposite party for reselling to other customers were damaged. Complainant produced the photographs of the doors. From the complaint itself we are on the opinion that complainant was harassed by the customers due to the doors having 10 years warranty which were damaged within 6 months. The doors were purchased by the complainant for resale and not for his personal use.  As per the Consumer Protection Act  “ Consumer means any person  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 promise, 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 obtained such goods for resale  or  for any commercial purpose. For the purpose of the clause   “commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earnings his livelihood by means of self employment”. 

9.     According to the definition of ‘consumer’ in Section (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration is a consumer.  In order to satisfy the requirement of section 2(1) (d) there must have been transaction of buying goods for consideration.  Under Clause (ii) Section 2(d) in order to become a consumer a person has to satisfy the three conditions. (i)The service should have been rendered to him. (ii) The service should have been hired by him. (iii) he should have paid the consideration for hiring the service in accordance with the manner laid down under Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Act.

10.      The term ‘for resale’ implies that the goods are brought for the purpose of selling them, and the expression ‘for commercial purpose’ is intented to cover cases other than those of resale of goods. According section 2(7) (i)  of the new Act the term ‘consumer’ does not include a person  who obtains such goods for resale  or for  any ‘commercial purpose’ where the expression ‘commercial purpose’ does not include people  who purchase goods solely for the  purpose of earnings livelihood by means of self employment.  When goods are brought for commercial purposes and such purchase satisfy the following criteria :-  i)   goods  are used the buyer himself.

 ii) Exclusively for the purpose of earnings his livelihood. 3) By means of self employment. Such use would not be termed as use for commercial purposes under the act and the user is recognised as a consumer. 

11.   In this case complainant had bought the doors from opposite party for selling to other customers. In the complaint itself he stated that he purchased the doors for selling to other customer of complainant and they called the complainant about the quality of the door and they complained to complainant of this complaint regarding the doors damaged within 6 months of its purchase. The above doors have 10 years warranty as per Ext. A1. As per Ext A5produced by complainant, version and affidavit filed by opposite party, it is clear that complainant had purchased the doors sold by opposite party. There is some transaction between complainant and opposite party is evident. But the thing is that complainant purchased the above doors for reselling the door to his customers.  Hence, he is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act.

 12.  Point No. 2 &3:-

           From the points stated above, it is clear that complainant is not a consumer under the definition of Consumer protection Act.  Hence the consideration of point No.2 & 3 does not arise and complaint stands dismissed.

Dated this 26^thday of October , 2022.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

                                                                           MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                          : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                        : Ext.A1to A5

Ext.A1 : Copy of guarantee card given by opposite party to complainant .

Ext.A2 :  Colour photograph of the door.

Ext.A3  : Colour photograph of another door. 

Ext.A4 :  Colour photograph of another door.

 Ext.A5 : Copy of   Account Ledger/Statement of Accounts for the period from

                  01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017.   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                       : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                     : Nil

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER