Haryana

Karnal

15/2015

Nagpal Vidya Mandir School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Voltas Limited., Mahavir Electronics Karnal - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Pahwa

22 Jan 2015

ORDER

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.  15 of 2015

                                                               Date of instt :21.01.2015             

                                                                                        Date of decision: 12.03.2015

 

  Nagpal Vidya  Mandir School Village Kunjpura District Karnal through its Head Master.

                                                               ………..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. VOLTAS  LIMITED, VOLTAGE HOUSE. ‘A’ BLOCK AMBEDKAR ROAD, CHINCHPOKIL, MUMBAI – 400033.

 

2.MAHAVIR ELECTRONICS KARNAL, SHOP NO.33, SECTOR 14 MARKET, KARNAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER.

                                                              ……… Opposite Parties.

          

                            Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                            Protection  Act.

 

Before            Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                        Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.

                       

 

 Present        Sh.Prashant Pahwa Advocate for the complainant.

 

ORDER:                           

 

                    Heard on the maintainability  of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that   complainant- Nagpal Vidya Mandir School had purchased one Platinum- All Weather Split –IDU 1.5 Type Air Conditioner and - Nagpal Vidya Mandir School was the consumer of the OP and as such in view of the law laid down in cases  Meera  & Co.Ltd. Versus Chinar Syntex Ltd. III (2004) CPJ 24 (NC), M/s Rinac India Ltd.and another Versus Karnataka Regional Engineering College Society 2010(2) CPC  Page 521 and Luxmi Engineering Works Vs.PSG Industrial Institute  AIR 1995 (Supreme Court) 1428, the complainant was a consumer.

 

2.                However, the authority  Meera & Co.Ltd. Versus Chinar Syntex Ltd.,s case (Supra) is of no help in the present circumstances of the case because the said case pertains to the purchase of a machinery  vide bill dated 14.2.1994 i.e. much prior to the amendment in the definition of Consumer as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Explanation has been added vide amendment Act 62 of 17.12.2002. Similarly  M/s Rinac India Ltd.and another Versus Karnataka Regional Engienering College Society,s case (Supra) is also of no help to the present case because in the said authority also dispute arose in the year 1993 i.e. again much prior to the amendment in the definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

3.                The law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industrial Institutes,s case (Supra) is also of no help to the complainant in order to fall within the definition of Consumer rather the said authority of the Hon,ble Apex court is against the complainant.  The Hon,ble Apex Court in Luxmi Engineering Works,s case (Supra) has discussed the Section 2(1)(d) at length.

 

4.                   Now, the question for adjudication is as to whether the complainant was consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act , reads as under:

 

          (d) “Consumer” means any person who:

            (i) 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 for 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 re-sale  or for any commercial purpose: or

 

(ii)(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 whom (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised  or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person; 

 

Explanation : For  the purples of sub clause(i) Commercial purpose, does not include use  by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment

  

5.                    Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in case Monstera Estate Pvt.Ltd. Versus ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. Vol. IV (2010)CPJ 299(NC) page 299   it has to be held that the purchase of article  by the complainant in  the present case  was for commercial purpose.        

 

6.                          The Hon’ble National Commission has recently laid down law regarding the definition of Consumer in case Consumer Complaint No.117 of 2014  on 7.5.2014 titled  Shailaja Finance Ltd. Versus GTM Buildlers and Promoters etc.   and also in case   Travel India Bureau  Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA & Ors. II(2008) CPJ 329(NC).

 

7.                    Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above referred authorities, it has to be held that in the instant case the complainant- Nagpal Vidya Mandir School is a Private Educational Institute and the same is being run for commercial purposes and as such the complainant doesnot lie within the definition of Section 2(1)(d)  of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint itself is not maintainable  thus the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated: 12.3.2015                                                                          

                                                          (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.