KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
C.C. No. 142/2018
ORDER DATED: 25.01.2021
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
M/s. Bhima & Brother, Mullackal, Alappuzha-688 011.
(By Advs. B. Sivadas & Anil Kumar A.S.)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES:
- Easy Trade Systems, 528 A, Seaport Airport Road, Kakkanad, Cochin-682 030.
- G.E. Energy, Industrial Solutions, G.E. India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Mayur Business Centre, Chittur Road, Pullepadi Junction, Cochin-682 035.
- G.E. India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., AIFACS Buildings, Rafi Marg, Delhi-110 001.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Complainant before us is M/s Bhima & Brother, a reputed Jeweller. They complain that they have purchased an LED Jewellery Immersion Display Unit for an amount of ₹ 24,25,200/- from the opposite parties. They allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Though we have issued notice on admission to them, they have not chosen to enter appearance. Therefore, we have heard the counsel for the complainant.
It is not in dispute that the complainant is a leading jeweller engaged in the business of making and selling gold ornaments. They have branches all over the world and admittedly they are a commercial establishment. The LED display system purchased by them was meant to display their business logo and was intended to advance their business prospects. Therefore, we wanted the counsel for the complainant to satisfy us how the complainant would come within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. According to the counsel the commodity was purchased for the purpose of carrying on a business that was being conducted for earning a livelihood. However, we are not prepared to accept the said contention for the reason that the complainant herein is a business concern and a well established leading jewellery store. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the commodity was purchased exclusively for a commercial purpose coming within the exclusion contained in the Act. Therefore, we find no grounds to admit this complaint.
This complaint is accordingly dismissed. But the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to pursue other legal remedies available in law, by excluding the time spent in pursuing the remedies before us.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER
jb
