GODREJ APPLIANCES LTD. vs S. Rajendran

ON the ground that the opposite parties supplied a defective Godrej Refrigerator and further alleging that they failed to attend to it in spite of his complaint, the complainant approached the District Forum, Nagapattinum for a direction to the opposite parties to supply a new fridge or to refund the value of the fridge with interest at 12% and further pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as damages.

THOUGH the opposite parties 2 and 3 remained absent, the first opposite party alone contested the matter stating that he had nothing to do with the dealings and that there was no contract between the complainant and the first opposite party and that when it was learnt by the first opposite party that there was a defect, he deputed a service engineer to the complainant''s residence and the first opposite party had nothing to do or not responsible for anything and hence, the first opposite party prayed that this complaint may be dismissed. The lower Forum directed the second opposite party to supply a new fridge to the complainant without charging any further sum and the third opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as damages plus Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the second opposite party.

THE appeal can be disposed of on a short point and, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to state the facts in details or discuss the materials on record in the context of the proof of the claim. From the very allegation made in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant purchased the Godrej Fridge for the purpose of storing the drinks and selling them as cool drinks. In other words, he is specific that it was not purchased by him for domestic use or personal use but for the purpose of running a cool drink shop or a shop where he can keep the fridge where the bottled drinks can be kept and then sold to the parties. Thus, it was for a business activity that was to be carried on by the complainant, the purchase was made. THE provisions of the Act make it clear that if the hiring of the service is for any business purpose, the Act will not apply. While dealing with the definition "Consumer", it clearly says that "consumer" means any person, etc. but will not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. Here definitely from the very allegation made in the complaint it is obvious that it is for commercial purpose the service has been availed of by the complainant. In other words he wanted to store bottled drinks in a shop in the Fridge and sell them to his customers. It was not purchased by him for keeping it in his house for domestic use or personal use. When on his own showing, it is clear that it is for commercial purpose he has purchased the same. It follows that he can''t fall within the definition of "Consumer" and hence he has no right to approach the Consumer Forum or maintain such an action. Hence, we are of the view that on this short point, the appeal has to be disposed of accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed without costs. Appeal allowed.