INNOVA RUBBERS PVT. LTD. vs LUCIFER LIGHTS LTD.

Challenge in this appeal which is filed by the appellant/complainant is to the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Complaint Case No.CC/13/174 whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent/opposite party.

Briefly stated, the appellant is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of rubber parts for automobile industry. It purchased 219 LED lights for its use from the respondent for a sum of Rs.48,23,084.26P during the period from June 2009 to December 2009. Since the LED lights were not giving expected results, the appellant requested the respondent to replace all the faulty 219 LED lights. As per the allegation, respondent did not do the needful in spite of repeated calls from the appellant, new lights to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs were required to be purchased as also Rs.1,05,000/- additionally incurred for fitting brackets for these lights. Alleging deficiency in service against the respondent company, a consumer complaint was filed by the appellant claiming Rs.48,23,083.26P with interest @ 18% along with Rs.2 lakhs for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. As stated above, vide its impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the State Commission dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (i).

We have heard learned Shri Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant and perused the record.

The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is a consumer or not. While dismissing the complaint of the appellant, the State Commission has observed thus:- " 3. Learned Advocate of the Complainant tried to make out a case in favour of Complainant as a ''Consumer'' covered under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also made a submission in respect of service as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Act. It was urged on behalf of the Complainant that the LED lights were purchased for self consumption of the Complainant in the factory premises by a certain specification as required under the statutory provisions applicable to the factory premises. Though the Complainant is a Company engaged in manufacturing activity thereby earning the profit, yet it is claimed on their behalf that the Complainants are "Consumers" under the provisions of the Act. Complainant has availed service against the consideration by paying the actual costs of the goods (LED lights for self consumption) therefore, relationship between the Complainant and the Opponent is established as "Consumer" and "Service Provider", respectively. The Complainant relied on various rulings in support of their submissions as mentioned below:

Civil Appeal No.1879/2003 and Civil Appeal No.7784 of 2002 (Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr. V/s. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.) passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Civil Appellate jurisdiction. The issue before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was whether the Respondent ''Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.'' was a "Consumer" as defined under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Respondent therein availed supply of electricity from the Appellant - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation. It was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that supply of electricity is not a sale but a service to the consumer and confirmed the earlier view in South Petrochemical Industries Ltd. Therefore, Respondent Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., the Company was covered under 2(1)(d) of the Act. Other citation relied upon by the Complainant is III (1996) CPJ 22 (NC) Shri Laxmi Cotton Traders Ltd. V/s. Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd. & Ors. In the order passed by the Hon''ble National Commission on 21.06.1996, which relates to jurisdic status of the company. The point in dispute before us is not a status of the Company as Jurisdic person but the controversy involves about status of a Complainant Company as a "Consumer" within four corners of the Act. In the case on hand, the Complainant Company as a commercial entity engaged in earning profit who has purchased LED lights supplied by Opponent for the purpose of running the day-to-day affairs of the factory. Therefore, the ruling laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation in our opinion is not applicable as facts and circumstances of this case are not identical.

In view of the aforesaid observations we hold that Complainant is not a "Consumer" within meaning of Section 23(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore, the complaint is not admitted , hence, rejected in limine."

Learned counsel has submitted that the State Commission has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not a consumer as per section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act. He submitted that under this provision, a consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. He pointed out that in the present case the appellant had purchased the LED lights for its own use and the purchase was not for resale or for any commercial purpose and hence the appellant is covered by the definition of section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Act.

We are not impressed by the contention raised by learned counsel. Admittedly, the appellant has purchased goods, namely, LED lights from the respondent but found the same defective. In view of this, the matter would rightly fall within the purview of section 2 (1) (d) (i) and not under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) as wrongly observed by the State Commission in the impugned order. Undoubtedly, the LED lights purchased were not for resale but section 2 (1) (d) (i) also provides that if the goods are purchased for commercial purpose, purchaser thereof will not be covered within the definition of a consumer. In fact, the section 2 (1) (d) excludes both type of persons, who purchase goods or avail of services for consideration but for commercial purpose, from the definition of consumer. The provisions of section 2 (1) (d) read thus:- "(d) "consumer" means any person who?

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ''hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes]; [Explanation .? For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]"

We may note that the person in this case being a Co. is a juristic person who had purchased the goods, i.e., LED lights for installation at different places in its factory where manufacturing and other business activity is carried out. This factual position is not disputed by the appellant. This being the case, we do not have any manner of doubt that the purchase of these lights even though not for resale was for lighting different locations in the factory premises for providing adequate light in the premises to facilitate manufacturing and allied activities. Although the explanation appended to section 2 (1) (d) of the Act provides that the "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, this explanation has restricted the scope of the commercial purpose and is of no avail to the appellant because it is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood by means of self-employment.

In view of this, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed in limine.