DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER 1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 11.10.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 08 of 2014 whereby the complaint was partly allowed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant – opposite party and the learned counsel for the respondent – complainant and perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 11.10.2017 and the memorandum of appeal. For the convenience, the parties are placed in the respective position as in the consumer complaint no. 08 of 2014. 3. There is a delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal. In the interest of justice and considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that the complainant, who is the project director of Indira Gandhi Science Complex – Planetarium, Patna, invited tender, duly published in Dainik Jagran, for supply of UPS for 60 KVA with battery. The opposite party submitted its quotation along with other company, duly fulfilled bid in a sealed cover. The opposite party, being the lowest bidder i.e. lowest rate Rs. 13,80 lacs + buyback offer of Rs. 2.00 lakh with warranty for two years, was selected and accordingly the machine was installed on 07.04.2013 with agreement between two parties. It is alleged that on 14.08.2013, all of a sudden at 2.42 p.m. the battery burst resulting in large scale ignition spread over other batteries and everything was burst. It was controlled by local fire extinguisher. The opposite party was informed the opposite party vide letter dated 23.08.2013 and the opposite party was requested to replace the U.P.S. and the battery as it was under warranty period. The Departmental Technical inspected and submitted its report on 01.10.2013 stating that the ignition caused due to short circuit, which is not covered under the warranty conditions, therefore, the opposite party is not responsible to compensate the loss. 5. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking direction to the opposite party to pay total compensation of Rs. 32,39,077/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of installation till the date of payment. 6. The opposite party contested the complaint by filing written statement the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence with regard to low quality of batteries. It is further stated that the complainant has not reported in respect of defect either in U.P.S. or in batteries to the opposite party. He further argued that the incident had not happened all of a sudden and the same had happened slowly and prior to incident the same was not taken into cognizance by the complainant which amounted to negligence on the part of the complainant and the opposite party is not liable for the loss occurred. It is further stated that the U.P.S. as well as batteries were not kept in proper condition as was required. It is further stated that the complainant is duty bound to insure the articles in question. It is further stated that the warranty for replacement of the U.P.S. as well as batteries are fulfilled in case there was any manufacturing defect and the loss occurred is not covered under the guarantee. It is further submitted that the opposite party had given diligent service to the complainant and the complainant had purchased the U.P.S. as well as batteries after full satisfaction from the opposite party. 7. The State Commission, vide its order dated 11.10.2017, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to replace a new U.P.S. with same quality of new battery or to pay Rs. 11 lakh with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the machine and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2017, the complainant has filed the instant appeal before this Commission. 9. The main issue before us is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 10. Before this Commission, learned counsel for the appellant – opposite party has vehemently argued that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the complainant bought U.P.S. from the opposite party for running of shows at Planetarium to earn profit. He further argued that the opposite party is not liable to replace the U.P.S. as well as batteries as the complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect and further no expert report was sought by the complainant to prove the same. He further argued that the U.P.S. and the batteries got damaged due to short-circuit, which is not covered under the warranty terms and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on the date of installation itself, the ‘R phase fan’ was not working and the same was replaced on 18.04.2013 and this clearly showed that the goods supplied by the opposite party were defective or substandard from the beginning. He further argued that there was no electric short circuit and the battery, which was under warranty, had burst itself and as a result, the fire spread to other batteries and damaged the U.P.S. and the complainant had suffered loss. He further argued that the opposite party had failed to prove that the battery had burst due to short circuit. In support of its contention, he placed reliance upon the report of the incident given by the Electrical Maintenance Technician of the complainant. He further argued that the contention of the opposite party that the complainant was involved in commercial activity had not been raised before the State Commission and the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage. Moreover, he argued that the complainant is an autonomous institution under the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Bihar and its objective is to promote in a catalytic manner, programmes for popularization of science at all levels of society and to promote scientific temper in the minds of people and not to earn profit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant is involved in commercial activity. He further argued that had any external fluctuation of the voltage occurred, the UPS would have stopped functioning / tripped as electricity had to pass through it first to reach the batteries connected to it but in the present case, the battery exploded first and caused a fire that resulted in fire damage to the UPS. 12. In the case at hand, firstly, it is apposite to cite the report of the electrical maintenance technician dated 12.09.2013, which reads thus: “The actual maintenance of 60 KVA 3 phase UPS System connected with the SKY Theatre was being done every day. On the date of occurrence also at 10.30 hrs. the Air Condition System of that room was started and after checking Input and Output Voltage physically the battery was checked and all equipments have been found properly working. On 14/8/2013 at 2.41 when a sound came from UPS room we all went to that room and found that one battery had caught fire. With the help of sand and fire extinguisher we made unsuccessful attempt of putting the fire off. Immediately the power supply was disconnected and intimation was given to Fire Brigade on No. 0612-222223. The people of Fire Brigade have controlled the fire; but all the 64 batteries connected were burnt out. Yesterday the occurrence took place and on 15/8/2013 all Switch Panel and input and output cable connected to 50 KVS Step Down to UPS attached to Sky Theatre, Air Conditioning Unit of 1.5 ton capacity for cooling purpose have been examined and all have been found totally in order. But some part of the UPS machine was damaged due to excess heat. Except the battery and UPS there is no any sign of short circuit in any switch or panel. Hence, it is bring estimated that the short circuit might have taken place in any specific battery resulting into bursting out and all batteries subsequently caught fire.” 13. As regards the contention that the complainant is not a consumer, under Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, State Government can be a complainant. Further, it was pleaded that the Planetarium is an autonomous institute under the State Government set up to promote interest in astronomy and not to generate profits. In view of the same, the complainant is held to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 14. It is not in dispute that the U.P.S. and the batteries were under warranty at the time of incident. It is also not in dispute that at the time of installation i.e. on 07.04.2013, R-Phase fan was not working as has been mentioned in Field Service Report dated 07.04.2013 and the same had been changed. The main argument of the appellant / opposite party is that due to short circuit, the battery burst and it is not covered under the policy but he has not placed any expert report to show that the U.P.S. and battery were burst due to short circuit. From a perusal of the Field Service Report dated 18.04.2013, it is clear that the Fan not working. On the other hand, the complainant had placed on record the report of the Maintenance Technician (Electricals), which shows that there was no sign of short circuit in any other switch or panel. It is pertinent to mention that the Regional Manager of the appellant has sent a letter dated 10.09.2013 stating that “Our Principal ‘Eaton’ had deputed their technical person to the site and he has observed that the said UPS system experienced problem due to short circuit induced at electrical panel and because of the same the connecting cable was burnt under fire and at the same time batteries connected at the UPS also got burnt and blasted too.”, but there is no reason for the opposite party for not placing the report of the technical person on record to prove that the battery burst due to external fire. No evidence has also been brought on record that short circuit, if any, was not covered in the warranty. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the battery burst due to external fire. Hence, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellant – opposite party. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 of the State Commission suffers from no infirmity or illegality. Hence, the appeal being without merit is dismissed. 16. Parties to bear their own cost. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of. | 
