Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/37/2016

Sumanth Holdings Pvt LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supriya Elavator Companny India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.Varandha Rajan

28 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.02.2016

                                                               Order pronounced on:  28.01.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 28^th  DAY OF JANUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.37/2016

 

 

M/s.Sumanth Holding Pvt. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing DirectorMr.M.Vijayakumar,

No.45/23, Flat N0.2B, MKV – Seraphic Courtyard,

Playground 3^rd Cross Street,

Kilpauk Garden Colony, Kilpauk,

Chennai – 600 010.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

 

M/s.Supriya Elevator Company (India) Ltd.,

Rep by its Director,

No.51, Murthingar Street,

Vysarpadi, Chennai – 600 039.

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/s.N.Varadha Rajan,

                                                                      N.Chandra Sekar

 

Counsel for  opposite party                        : Mr. J.P.Karunakaran & Inthu

                                                                      Karunakaran

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The  complainants  are developers of the premises bearing door No.45, old No.23,play Ground Street, Kilpauk Garden colony, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 into a residential flat comprised of stilt+2 floors and engaged opposite party  for erecting lift.  After inspection  the opposite party  had given quotation for the lift having capacity to accommodate 6 passengers and the cost was fixed to Rs.7,00,000/-. As per the payment schedule in the terms of contract the complainant had paid Rs.6,30,000/- and  to pay the  balance of Rs.70,000/-. After receipt of the final payment the opposite party called upon the complainant for test drive and at that time only the complainant found that the lift car room space was found to be small even incapable of accommodating 4 persons which is contrary to the work order and it would also create misunderstanding between the flat owners of the said property and the complainants. Since opposite party  have gone against their agreement, the complainant  issued notice complaining of the same and the opposite party have failed to comply the complainant’s demand. The complainants were forced to engage third party Lift Company to complete the erection of the lift to make it useful for the flat owners by providing Mother Board at the cost of the complainants. The opposite party  activities had seriously affected the complainants  integrity and reputation of the complainant on their business apart from resulting  in serious misunderstanding between the complainants and the residential flat owners of said property. The meeting between the complainants and opposite party  was not fruitful and opposite party was insisting over the balance payment. The opposite party would go to say that they could not ascertain the well size of the lift while they obtained the work order and they cannot provide the six passengers lift as the well size is small. They have misrepresented and obtained the work order from the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  is liable to be  dismissed in view of its commercial in nature. The complainant  is not a Consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The opposite party  have manufactured  and erected the lift in compliance with  Indian Standard and there is no deficiency in service. In the quotation and in the work order  the capacity of the lift was mentioned for six passengers with  408 kgs weight as mentioned in IS Point 5. Every manufacturing company   of lift  provides the capacity of the cabin cars by weight only because every person shall have different physique and weights respectively. General arrangement drawing was approved after having taken the site measurement and submitted to the complainant for approval. It was approved by the complainant wherein the lift cabin car’s inside dimension of 100 mm wide and 715 mm deep. The complainant had failed to furnish the opinion of the expert for the technical matters. The present complaint is not maintainable and to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complainant  is a Consumer?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant  is a private limited company involved in the business of developers of  buildings and they develop a property located at Kilpauk. They had entered into an agreement with the opposite party . Admittedly the complainants  are carrying  on business activity and they themselves have stated in the complaint  that the activities of the opposite party  would affect their integrity and  reputation in their business. The definition of 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986 reads as follows:

1. 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 promised, 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 obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose: or

 

2. ‘(hires or avails of) any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose):

Here in this case the complainant  admittedly entered into agreement with the opposite party  for the purpose of  the premises  being developed into apartments  and also to provide lift for the  proposed flat owners and it is a commercial activity and the consumers who avail services for commercial purpose would not fall under the ambit of the consumer as defined in section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986. Hence it is decided that the complainant  is not a consumer. The complaint fails in such aspect and is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly point 1 is answered.

05.POINT NO:2

 Since the complaint  is  with respect to commercial activity and the complaint fails as discussed in point No.1, the question will not arise regarding the deficiency of service.

06.POINT NO:3

          As discussed in point No.1, the complaint fails and complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complainant  is dismissed.

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th  day of January 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.02.2014                   Authorization Letter

Ex.A2 dated 24.02.2014                   The opposite parties Quotation

Ex.A3 dated 31.03.2014                   The Complainant’s Work Order

Rc.A4 dated 21.01.2015                   Company Resolution

Ex.A5 dated 05.02.2015                   The complainants Advocate notice to opposite                                                                                                       

                                                     Party

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Postal Ack. Due signed by the opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 11.03.2015                   The opposite parties reply letter

 

Ex.A8 dated 10.04.2015                   The complainants Rejoinder Advocate notice

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Postal Ack. Due signed by the opposite party

 

Ex.A10 dated 18.05.2015                  The opposite party letter

 

Ex.A11 dated 01.06.2015                 The complainants Reply Advocate notice

 

Ex.A12 dated NIL                             Postal Ack. Due signed by the opposite party

 

Ex.A13 dated NIL                             Property Tax Payment Receipts series

                                               

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Power of Attorney

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Terms and Conditions

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                      IS Certificate

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT