Kerala

Idukki

CC/74/2023

Sonu Varghese - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sreekumar Ramadas - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 29.3.2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   30^th  day of  March,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.74/2023

Between

Complainant                                           :     Sonu Varghese,

                                                                   General Manager,

                                                                   Sugandhagiri Spices Promoters and                                                                                  Traders Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                                   Nedumkandam.

          (By Advs: Sasikumar S.N. & V.V. Sunny)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1.  Sreekumar Ramadas,

                                                                   Partner, Green Power Generators,

                                                                   9/58 A, Society Road, Maradu,

                                                                   Ernakulam.

       2. Ambili,

                                                                   Partner, Green Power Generators,

                                                                   9/58 A, Society Road, Maradu,

                                                                   Ernakulam.

      3. Deepu G. Nair,

                                                                   Sales Manager,

          Green Power Generators,

                                                                   9/58 A, Society Road, Maradu,

                                                                   Ernakulam.

 

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

         

This is a complaint filed by a private company ‘Sugandhagiri Spices’ by name, represented by its General Manager. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are partners of the concern, Green Power Generators and 3^rd opposite party is sales manager of the firm, working under them.  Complainant company had purchased a 40 KWA generator from the concern represented by opposite parties 1 and 2, believing representations of 3^rd opposite party that this generator will be sufficient for functioning of office equipments including air conditioners along with the compressor for grading machine each of 1.5 H.P.  However, generator was not sufficient for the requirements of company.  There was misrepresentation by 3^rd opposite party on behalf of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, that                                                                                                            (cont….2)

• 2  -

40 KWA generator of the firm will be sufficient for the purpose of company represented by complainant.  Since all the equipments could not be functioned, complainant company sustained a loss of Rs.40 lakhs.  This constitutes deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.  Apart from the said Rs.40 lakhs, company had sustained a loss of Rs.7 lakhs also due to non-functioning of office equipments.  Complainant therefore prays for realization of Rs.47 lakhs from opposite parties 1 to 3.  Along with the complaint, 9 documents have been produced.

 

          We have gone through the complaint and documents.  We have also heard the learned counsel for complainant.  Now the point which arise for consideration is : Whether complaint is maintainable ?

 

The Point :

 

          As is seen from the cause title itself, complainant is a private limited company dealing in spices.  Purchase of generator was for the purpose of business of the company which takes in functioning of its office as well.  Loss claimed due to non-functioning of cardamom grading machine is quantified at Rs.40 lakhs. This strengthens our conclusions that purchase was for commercial purpose.  That being so, complaint is not maintainable, before this Commission.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act.  Point is answered accordingly.

 

          In the result, complaint is rejected.  Counsel for complainant has filed an application to take back original documents.  Return original documents to complainant’s counsel upon proper acknowledgment. 

 

                             Pronounced by this Commission on this   30^th  day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

             SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                      Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

     Forwarded by Order,

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR