KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 34/2024

ORDER DATED: 07.06.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 19/2023 of DCDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Amzer Infra Project LLP, Door No. 168/K, Kallisseri Tower, Madambi, Kongorpilly P.O., Koonammavu, Ernakulam-683 518, represented by Shafi P.J., Managing Partner, Amzer Infra Project LLP.

(By Adv. S. Vikraman)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Vishal Divakaran, S/o A.M. Divakaran, Managing Partner, Pearl View Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Veenus Corner, Thalassery, Kannur residing at Mukund Nivas, Kadirur, Ponniyam, Ponniyam West P.O., Thalassery Taluk, Kannur.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 19/2023 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (District Commission for short).  The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 19.04.2024 of the District Commission finding that the complaint filed by the respondent was maintainable. 

2.  The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that the roofing work conducted by the revision petitioner was defective and therefore he sought for a direction to the revision petitioner to replace the defective materials.  The complainant is the Managing Partner of M/s Pearl View Hotels Private Ltd.  As part of the proposal to renovate the hotel in a proper manner certain works had to be conducted.  The revision petitioner undertook the construction of the main roof of the reception block in Hotel Pearl View by installing GI frame work with beam ridge, rafters, purling, batterns etc. The revision petitioner ought to have used roofing sheet manufactured by Jindal, JSW or other reputed products.  But, the petitioner completed the work using substandard and defective materials.  The GI sheets used were completely rusted.  The laying of the GI sheet, welding and the materials used were all defective.  As a consequence, there was leakage and resultant damage to the gypsum ceiling.  The painting work was also defective.  Since the terms of the contract have been violated the complaint was filed along with an application for the appointment of an expert commissioner to visit the site and to assess the quality of the work.  Accordingly, an expert visited the work site and submitted a report.

3.  The revision petitioner filed version denying all the allegations.  A contention was put forward that the complainant was not a consumer since he was conducting a hotel which is a commercial venture.  The work having been conducted as service for a commercial purpose, it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable. 

4.  After hearing the respective parties, the District Commission considered the contentions and has held that the complaint was maintainable.  It is aggrieved by the said order that this revision is filed. 

5.  According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the respondent herein is engaged in a commercial activity.  The reception was part of the hotel and it was roof of the reception area of the hotel that was constructed by the revision petitioner.  It is contended that since the hotel was a commercial enterprise the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. 

6.  We have considered the contentions advanced before us, anxiously.  It is true that the hotel is a commercial venture.  But the Supreme Court has clarified that a particular activity would cease to be a commercial purpose when it is not intended for making profit in the activity in which the complainant is engaged.  Admittedly, the roof of the reception area of the hotel was put up by the revision petitioner.  The reception is an area of the hotel where guests are received before they are escorted to individual rooms allotted to them.  The service provided by the petitioner was not for any direct utilization by the complainant in the commercial purpose in which he was engaged.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the service provided by the revision petitioner was for a commercial purpose.  The sheets are provided for the use of the complainant and the guests who come to the hotel.  Therefore, the said activity would not attract the bar of commercial purpose contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 

The District Commission has considered the question in the correct perspective and has found that the complaint was maintainable.  We find no grounds to interfere with the said order.  This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                               AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                             RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb