DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

M/s Vanshika Buildtech Ltd.

Flat no. 4,3 2^nd Floor, Scindia House,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

Through its authorised representative Mr. Ajay Vashisth

                                                                                          ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mr. Sanjay Sood

MD M/s Atmos Aircon 8 C/ 13 W.E.A.

Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005

2. M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt Ltd

12nd Floor, Building no. 9 Tower A,

DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase-III

Gurgoan -122002

3. Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Jawa Managing Directoor

Of M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd

C-204, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi

4. Mr. Rohit Berry Director of

M/s Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd

C-204, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi

                                      ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold without going into its merits.  The complaint has been filed in the name of M/s Vanshika Buildtech Ltd.  The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act.  It had purchased an air conditioning system from the OPs. The complainant company thus had purchased goods or obtained the services of the OPs for commercial purposes.  The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only.  Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”  

         In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”

In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S Fertilizers (P) Ltd & Anr I appeal no. 723/2006 again  a similar view was taken by the National Commission.  This was followed in the case of BELMAKS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no 07 of 2013.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.   

         A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________

           ( S N SHUKLA )                  ( RAKESH KAPOOR )

          MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT