PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

Petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum and respondent was the original complainant. The respondent placed an order for supply of 15 sets of Weld Trimmers with Cutters, Hydraulic Cylinders and Hydraulic Power Packs with the opposite party vide purchase order dated 31.3.2006. Alleging defects in the goods supplied by the opposite party, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 7.12.2006 to the opposite party and since the opposite party failed to comply with the request made in the notice, the complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in Andhra Pradesh. The opposite party contested the complaint. The District Forum, on appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence placed before it, held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence dismissed the complaint of the respondent / complainant. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal against it before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (tate Commission for short) which vide its impugned order dated 28.1.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant for the 5 sets that were returned to former together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 27.9.2006 till the date of realization along with cost of Rs.3,000/-. The opposite party has filed the present revision petition against this order of the State Commission. 2. We have heard Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, Advocate for the respondent. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner company has submitted that the complaint was filed by a limited company engaged in commercial activities in respect of a business transaction and hence the complainant could not be regarded as a onsumeras defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of this, the complaint was not maintainable before any Consumer Forum. The State Commission, therefore, erred in exercising jurisdiction not vested in it under the Act at the behest of a person who could not be treated as a consumer qua the transaction in question. The counsel has also denied any deficiency on the part of the petitioner in regard to the goods supplied which, he said, had been confirmed by the District Forum also in its detailed order while dismissing the complaint of the respondent. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the State Commission be set aside and the revision petition allowed on the ground of non-maintainability of the present complaint. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, we find that there cannot be any doubt about the status of the complainant/respondent as a public limited company engaged in commercial activities. The transaction of purchase of goods in question was also for commercial purpose during the course of business. In such a situation keeping in view the provision of section 2(1)(d), the respondent could not be treated as a onsumerand hence this complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and hence is hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent company to approach appropriate Forum for redressal of its grievances and in case it chooses to do so, it can claim the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent before the Consumer Fora in accordance with the ruling given by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works V/s. P.S.G. Industrial Institute {(1995) 3 SCC 583}. The revision petition stands disposed of in terms of these directions with no order as to costs.