ASSISTANT MANAGER, BPL INDIA vs S.R.TUSHAR THE ASST. AREA SERVICE MANAGER, VENKATESHWARA SALES INTERNATIONAL

THIS appeal is directed against the Order dated 2/7/1990 of the District Forum, Gulbarga in Complaint No. 16/90/378 on its file. It arise in this way: Respondent No. 1 is the Proprietor of a Video Library called ''Apna Ghar Video House'' at Fort Road, Gulbarga. He purchased a VCR of BPL Company from respondent No. 3. The said VCR developed some defects and could not be operated. Hence he gave it for repairs to respondents 2 and 3. Although they got it repaired once or twice, still it was not working properly. Hence he filed a complaint before the District Forum for replacement of the VCR and for compensation.

THE complaint was resisted by contending inter alia that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act''); that as the complainant is using VCR for commercial purpose, he will not be a consumer, that as the warranty period has expired, they are not bound to attend to the defect free of charge and that they are not bound to replace the VCR. THE complainant gave evidence as PW1 and the Partner of respondent No. 3 was examined as RW1. On the said evidence, the District Forum reached the conclusion that the VCR supplied to the complainant was defective and directed the first respondent to replace the VCR by new VCR of BPL Company which is free from any defect or to pay to the complainant Rs. 14,400/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from the date of the order till the date of payment, if the VCR is not replaced and also to pay Rs. 7,500/- as compensation together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% from the date of the Order till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 100/-. THE complaint against respondents 2 and 3 was dismissed. Hence this Appeal by respondent No. l. The Asst. Law Officer of the appellant urged that the appeal has to succeed on a short point that the VCR was purchased for a commercial purpose and so the complainant will not be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

After going through the evidence, we see considerable force in the said contention. PW1 has clearly admitted in his deposition that he is running a Video Parlour at Gulbarga; that on account of he being not able to play the Video which suffered from the above said problem during the period it was sent for repairs he had suffered loss of Rs. 150/- per day and that on account of the VCR suffering from the above said problem, he was not able to play the VCR for about 5 months. From the said admission, it is clear that the VCR purchased by the complainant was for the purpose of running the Video Parlour and making profit out of it. Thus it was for a commercial purpose. According to Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, ''Consumer'' means any person who buys any goods for consideration but does not include a person who obtains such goods for any commercial purpose. Therefore, as the complainant in this case has purchased the VCR for commercial purpose, he will not be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. If that is so, the complaint has to be dismissed, on that short point alone. In view of that, it is unnecessary for us to deal with the other points involved in the case.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.