AMARJIT ARORA vs CHAIRMAN, MODI THREADS LTD

THE complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties under Section 12 read with Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''the Act'') before the State Commission.

IT arises in this way :- The complainant Shri Amarjit Arora in this case is a businessman who is the proprietor of Foam Distributors, Madhopuri Chowk, Ludhiana. IT is alleged that during the period from 14.7.1990 to 8.8.1990, the complainant purchased 6567 Kgs.. of acrylic yarn from the respondents for hosiery goods for a total cost of Rs. 6,95J22.20. The grievance pur forward in the complaint is that the yarn supplied by the respondent (Modi Threads Ltd., Modi Nagar, U.P.) was found to be defective. Since correspondence with the respondents for the refund of money did not yield any results, the complainant approached the State Commission for the recovery of Rs. 4,35,658.24 for the loss suffered by him. The claim has been contested by the respondents They have inter alia pleaded that the Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case as the complainant is not the consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the. Act. After going through the pleading of the complainant, we see considerable force in the said contention. The complainant has clearly admitted in the complaint that he had purchased arcylic yarn for making hosiery goods. He has not only asked for the refund of price but has also requested that in view ''of loss of business, he is entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 4,35,658.24 from the respondents. Therefore, the complainant is not a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. It does not include a person who obtains goods for any commercial purpose. In this view, we are fortified by a decision in I (1991) CPJ 330 (NC). M/s. Oswal Fine Arts v. H.M.T., Madras (Original Petition No. 1/1988, decided on April 27, 1989, by the National Commission) wherein it was held that a person who obtains goods for commercial purpose, is specially excluded from the scope of the expression ''consumer'' by the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived that the complainant is not the ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i), we do not consider it necessary to go into the other question which arise from the complaint.

THE complaint is accordingly dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.