M/s Star resorts Pvt. Ltd. Fagu Top, Shimla-171009, H.P.

Through its Managing Director,

Sh.Ramesh Dudani. ..Complainant.



Versus



1. M/s Titanik Laser World, WZ-227, Shakur pur, Village, Delhi-110034 through Mr.Deepak Thukral.



2. Mr. Deepak Thukral of M/s Titanik Laser World, Wz-227, Shakur Pur Village, Delhi-110034.



..Opposite Parties.***********



For the complainant: Mr. Pradeep Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate.



For Opposite Parties: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

………………………………………………………………………..

ORDER:

Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is running a Hotel/Resort in Fagu Top, Shimla under the name and style of M/s Star Resorts Pvt. Ltd. That the complainant for the purpose of running business of resort purchased one Bowling Alley 36inch length (Indoor Game) and Basket Ball (Indoor Game) from the OP for total consideration of Rs.2,54,800/- which was installed in the Hotel of the complainant in the month of December, 2002. That a sum of Rs.24,800/- was to be paid to the OPs after satisfactory installation of the aforesaid games. It is alleged that the games aforesaid did not function properly after installation and despite repeated requests, the OPs did not rectify the defects occurred in the games, as a result of which the complainant suffered huge financial loss in their clientage. Hence, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the Ops.


2. The OPs while filing reply took preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint and status of the complainant as a consumer. On merits, they alleged that the games in question were purchased by the complainant for the purpose of running their business of resort and as such the complainant is not a consumer. It is further alleged that the games in question were purchased on 13.12.2002 and the defects, if any, was reported after the expiry of the warranty period. Hence, there being no deficiency in service on their part, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavit in support of the claim/counter claim.


3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case file minutely.


4. It may be stated at the very out set of the case that the OPs have taken a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer because the games so purchased (in question) were installed in the Hotel for promoting the business of complainant resort. It is no where alleged by complainant in the complaint specifically that he is running hotel/resort business for earning his livelihood. Rather in Para No.2 of complaint, it is written that for the purpose of running his business of resort, the aforesaid games were purchased by him. Thus, the complainant cannot be held a ‘consumer’ as per the definition of the Act as contained in section 2(1) (d)(i) because as provision of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, if person purchases goods for commercial purpose, he is not regarded as ‘consumer’. Therefore, the complainant being not a consumer, resultantly this complaint is not legally maintainable. On this point, we are supported by the following case law authorities:-

1. I (1991) CPJ 145 Natiional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case M/S Lohia Starlinger Limited versus M/S Zenith Computers Limited.



2. I(1991) CPJ 499 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Greaves Cotton & Company Ltd.



3. I(1991) CPJ 471 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in case Lucky Star Estate (I) versus Laxmi Boilers (North).



4. 1 (1991) CPJ 155 Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Banglore in case Assistant Manager, BPL India versus Sr. Tushar and others.



5. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the complainant being not ‘consumer’ is not entitled to file and maintain the present complaint. Accordingly, it is dismissed being not legally competent. No order as to the cost.