Appellant, which is a private limited company, filed the complaint against the respondent bank seeking compensation for loss of profit, loss of reputation, loss of interest on the amount held as security, loss of interest on held up capital of Rs.6,90,92,000/- and Rs.5 lakh towards mental agony and sufferance totalling Rs.60 lakh in all on the ground that the services it had agreed to provide were not provided.

        State Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.  It was held that the appellant did not fall within the meaning of the word ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  State Commission has relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. – CDJ 2010 State Commission 1177, wherein Supreme Court held as under :

“that the goods sold by the appellant to the respondent/complainant amounted to `goods’ and that such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even the services which were offered had to be for the commercial purpose. Nothing was argued to the contrary. On the one count that under Section 2(1)(d)(i), the goods have been purchased for commercial purposes and on the second count that the services were hired or availed of for commercial purposes. The matter does not come even under the Explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. on 15.3.2003 by way of the amendment by the same Amendment Act, as it is nobody’s case that the goods bought and used by the respondent herein and the services availed by the respondent were exclusively for the purpose of earning the respondent’s livelihood by means of self-employment. In that view, it will have to be held that the complaint itself was not maintainable in toto.”

        State Commission in para 4 and 5 of its order has observed as under :

“The learned counsel for the complainant contended that their Lordships’ did not consider the definition of ‘service’ as defined u/s 2(1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act vis-vis ‘goods and services’. In fact in view of definition u/s 2(1) (d) (ii) there is no need to consider the definition of ‘service’, in view of the fact that said definition expatiates as to the services that are amenable in order to resolve the dispute.

At the cost of repetition, we may state that in order to attract a case to be filed before the Consumer Fora the important ingredient could be that either availing of services or goods purchased it should be exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. By no stretch of imagination a Private Limited Company could be treated as a person of goods bought and used by him/it and services availed by him/it exclusively for the purposes of earning his/its livelihood by means of self-employment.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Contention raised by the appellant that the Supreme Court did not consider the deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, viz.a.viz., goods and services is of no consequence as what has to be examined is whether the complainant falls within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and not whether the respondent is a ‘service provider’ falling within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. 

        Since the appellant had availed of services of the respondent for a commercial purpose, he would not fall within the definition of the word ‘consumer’ given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the person availing of the services for a commercial purpose stands excluded from seeking relief under the Consumer Protection Act.  Judgement of the Supreme Court in Birla Technologies case (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.  Dismissed.