Complainant/appellant, which is a private limited company, had filed the complaint against Opp.party/Respondent No.1, which is a partnership concern and Opp.parties 2 and 3 – a private limited company, alleging that it had incurred certain expenses to provide facilities to their Managing Director like Modular Kitchen, designer toilets, separate servant room with attached toilet per flat, swimming pool and a lavish club etc.  Certain other expenses were also incurred.  Alleging that the goods supplied were defective, a complaint was filed by the appellant private company. 

State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant, which is a private company, does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given in Section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  State Commission dismissed the complaint relying upon the judgement of the Supreme court in Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. – (2011) 1 SCC 525 with the following observations :

“Since the complainant is a private limited company and it cannot say that it was purchased for its residence.  It is to accommodate one of the directors of the company in the course of its business.  Only exclusion is services availed for the purpose of earning the complainant’s livelihood by means of self-employment.  In view of exclusion from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, we directed the learned counsel to show as to how the complaint is maintainable under the Act, more so in the light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. reported in CDJ 2010 SC 1177 wherein it was held :

“that the goods sold by the Appellant to the Respondent/complainant amounted to ’goods’ and that such goods were purchased for commercial purpose of earning more profits, there could be no dispute that even the services which were offered had to be for the commercial purpose. Nothing was argued to the contrary. On the one count that under Section 2(1)(d)(i), the goods have been purchased for commercial purposes and on the second count that the services were hired or availed of for commercial purposes. The matter does not come even under the Explanation which was introduced on the same day i.e. on 15.3.2003 by way of the amendment by the same Amendment Act, as it is nobody’s case that the goods bought and used by the Respondent herein and the services availed by the Respondent were exclusively for the purpose of earning the Respondent’s livelihood by means of self-employment. In that view, it will have to be held that the complaint itself was not maintainable in toto.”

We may also mention that when a car was purchased by the firm for a commercial purpose it was held that at no stretch of imagination it can be construed as a consumer dispute.  When the service which according to the complainant a company intends to avail is for commercial purpose, we are not inclined to take cognizance of the matter. It has become a routine the complaints are being filed by the company, obviously in order to get over payment of court fees and advantage of summary proceedings barring genuine consumer disputes to get their redressal expeditiously.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  View taken by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by this Bench in General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. G.S. Fertilizers & Anr. – F.A. No.723/2006 decided on 7.2.2013.  In the said case, complaint was filed by a Private Limited Company for the defects in the car which had been purchased for its Managing Director.  It was held that since the car had been purchased for the use of the Managing Director, the same was a commercial purpose and the complaint filed by the Private Limited Company was not maintainable.

        Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a two-Member Bench decision of this Commission in O.P. No.9/2006 decided on 17.9.2007 where a contrary view had been taken.  We need not refer this matter to a Larger Bench as the Supreme Court has clarified and held that a person who purchases goods for a commercial purpose or hires services for a commercial purpose, is excluded from the definition of ‘consumer’.  Reference may be made to the latest judgement of the Supreme Court in Birla Technologies  case (supra).

Since the view taken by the State Commission is in line with the view taken by this Commission, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.

Appellant, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek rederessal of its grievances from any other appropriate Forum along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.