EIDER ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES LTD. vs TATA TELECOM LTD.

M/s. Eider Electronics, the complainant purchased an Electronic Private Automatic Branch Exchange (EPABX) and itwas installed at its office premises in Sector 8C, Chandigarh. Its total price was Rs. 3,72,000/-, where as a sum of Rs. 1,48,800/- being 40% was remitted by means of a cheque on 18.11.1996 at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat, the premises of the respondent. The grievances of the complainant had been that EPABX equipment supplied was defective from the very beginning and it did not function properly. The claim put forward is briefly reproduced as under :

A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The preliminary objections raised are that the order for supply of EPABX was placed at Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and since the agreement was executed there, this Commission at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction. Another important plea is that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the use of the system was for furtherance of the commercial activities of the complainant. There was also a plea that the complaint has been instituted only to avoid payment of the balance price of Rs. 2,61,022/-. We have heard me learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objections as regards the territorial jurisdiction. A perusal of the record shows that the cheque for Rs. 1,48,800/-was delivered at Gandhinagar. At the same time, it is an admitted fact that there is a branch office of the respondent at Chandigarh and it was known to the respondent that the EPABX was to be installed at the premises of the complainant at Chandigarh. In view of the present Clause 2(b) of Section 11 of the Act, it is held that the plea of want of territorial jurisdiction has no merit and it is decided against the respondent.

As regards the second plea it is obvious that the respondent is a business concern and EPABX was installed for furtherance of their commercial activities. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent is a ''consumer''.

IN support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to IDC Electronics Ltd. v. Ajara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors., I (1993) CPJ 65 (NC)=1993 (1) CPR 225 (NC), wherein it was observed that since the Xerox machine was purchased by a Bank for its office use, the complaint did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Besides this, our attention has been invited to INternational Computers INdia Manufacturing Ltd. v. M/s. Monarch Agencies, III (1992) CPJ 58 (NC), where the purchase of computer for business purposes was held to be beyond the purview of the Consumer Fora. Any authority to the contrary has not been brought to our notice. Thus, we hold that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' and the complaint is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.