By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :

          The case is that the complainant is engaged in contract work  for his livelihood.  The respondents are  manufacturers and dealers of construction equipments.  For the purpose of livelihood the complainant was in need of  hydraulic excavator  with rock breaker. He purchased one Hitachi Model ZX 110 hydraulic excavator  and one rock breaker assembly on 28/2/09 and paid Rs.51,38,000/-.  But the complainant could not have to do the contract works because  ever since  the  date of purchase the rock breaker was not working properly.  The complainant has lost the work he has taken.  This complaint is filed to get new  brand one rock breaker or the price of  the same.

          2. The respondents filed their version and  challenged the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum.  According to them the complainant is not a consumer since the complainant had purchased the equipment for commercial purpose.  They would say that  the complainant is a large scale contractor who employs  heavy  machinery for his work.  He also  owns three tipper lorries and other equipments.  So according to the respondents the complainant is not a consumer.

          3. The issue of maintainability is heard.  It can be seen from the averment in the  complaint itself that the complainant is a contractor who is doing  contract work.  In order to do the same he had purchased one Hitachi model  hydraulic excavator and also rock breaker.  The price of both the equipments comes of Rs.51,38,000/- in which the rock breaker  is  the disputed machine in this case which costs Rs.12,48,000/-.  As stated by respondents there is no doubt that the complainant is engaged in commercial activities and he is not a consumer as stated in Consumer Protection Act.  The commercial consumers are excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  A commercial consumer like complainant cannot take the contention of livelihood and self employment.  The cannot take the benefit of self employment and livelihood.  It is true that the complaint was filed in the year 2009 and the question of jurisdiction is decided  now.  But it is held by our Hon’ble National Commission and reported in 2012(3)CPR NC 352 that the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at execution stage.  So there is no illegality or irregularity  in dismissing the complaint on the issue of jurisdiction at this juncture.  The complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and liable to be dismissed.

          3. In the result the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 11^th  day  of July        2014.