DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. _449_ OF ___2015_

DATE OF FILING : 06.10.2015          DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  10.4.2018

Present                        :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker  & Jhunu Prasad

COMPLAINANT        :    Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, 289/3, Jonepur, P.O Kanchrapara, North 24-Parganas, Pin-743145

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                            :  Water Tech, 1, Bidhan Pally Jhilik, 2^nd floor, at Gitanjali Metro Station, Kolkata – 700 084.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

     The summation and summarization of the facts manifested in the petition of complaint is that the complainant being a  Proprietor of ARB Enterprise placed an order before the O.P for supply of Lab Equipments , glass wares, chemicals   as per B.I.S standard  on the basis of the quotation dated 8.6.2014 of the O.P and he also paid the full price of quotation i.e Rs.3,10,000/-on the supply of those equipments by the O.P. But neither the equipments were commissioned ,nor was calibration tests and certificates of the equipments furnished to the complainant by the O.P and, as such the project of the complainant failed to get necessary approval from the competent authority , resulting huge loss to the complainant. So, the case is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for issuing a direction to the O.P to refund the amount and also to pay compensation etc. Hence, this case.

     The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written statement, wherein it is mainly contended that the complainant is not a consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable under the provision of C.P Act, 1986. According to him, the complainant did not pay the sales tax as agreed upon between them and, therefore, it has not been possible for him to commission the equipments. The complaint is filed malafide with intention to harass the O.P and, therefore, it should be dismissed in limini with cost.

     Evidences have been filed on behalf of the parties  and the same are kept in the record.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law ?
2. Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Already heard the submissions made by the Ld. Lawyers on behalf of the parties. Perused the complaint and the written statement and also the evidences on record.

Considered all these.

Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.P has argued that the complainant placed the order for supply of the Lab Equipments etc. before the O.P for his business. The complainant, according to him, runs a business for supply of package drinking water and, therefore, he palced the order for supply of the equipments before the O.P. The equipments were supplied by the O.P for the business of the complainant; those were supplied for commercial purpose. It is nowhere stated by the complainant that the business is run by him for earning livelihood exclusively by way of self employment. So, according to him, this type of complaint is not maintainable before the Forum in accordance with the provisions of C.P Act, 1986.

In order to maintain a complaint by the complainant, the complainant will first haveto bea consumer under the definition of “Consumer” as provided under section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.

Let us see now, whether the complainant can be regarded as a “Consumer “within the definition of Consumer under the said Act.

Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the said Actexcludes a person from the definition of ‘Consumer’ whenthe said person purchases any goods or hires or purchases any services for commercial purpose. To this exception,is also provided another exception under the head “Explanation” to the said sectionand it provides that any person will be regarded as a consumer if he purchases any goods or services, whatever may be, for commercial purpose for the purpose of earning his livelihood exclusively by means of self employment. Coming to the facts of the instant case it is found that the complainant purchased the Lab Equipments spending a large amount of money i.e Rs.3,10,000/-. These equipments were purchased by him for running a business of package drinking water supply. Regards being had to the nature and enormity of the business sought to be undertaken by the complainant we feel no scruple to say that the complainant purchased the Lab Equipments for commercial purpose. It is nowhere stated by the complainant that this business was sought to be run by him for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Both the pleadings and the evidences of the complainant are found to be silent in this regard. So, taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances transpiring on record, we do hold that the complainant purchased the Lab equipments for commercial purpose i.e for his business and this being so, the present complaint is not maintainable in law.

Point no.1 is thus answered against the complainantand as such point no.2 need not be discussed any more.

In the result, the case fails.

Hence,

                                      ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P but without cost.

Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.

                                                                                                          President

I / We agree

                               Member                                                    Member                                                                      

Dictated and corrected by me

                        President