LAXMICHAND MAVJI SHAH vs Maegaware Computers Ltd.

THE complainant Shri Laxmichand Shah is a businessman having business in textile. He has three show rooms at different places at Bombay and wanted to install a computer at his aforesaid three show rooms for the purpose of his business. THE instance of purchasing the computer system relates to the month of December, 1986 and from the documents it is seen that the transaction of purchase was completed in the month of January, 1987. THE Opposite Party Maegaware Computers Ltd. is a Company having its registered office at Bombay. THEy sold the computer system to the. Complainant in the month of January, 1987. It is the case of complainant that the computer system which he purchased from the opposite party was thrust on him by the opposite party with the ulterior motive, to deceive him. THE complainant further alleged in his complaint that the opposite party managed to obtain the loan in the name of the complainant and directly received the money from the Bank. It is further alleged that the package, containing the computer system was lying for a long period in his shop and when it was tried to be operated, it could not give proper service. According to the complainant, the entire computer system was defective and, therefore, by a letter dated 4.5.87, he lodged a complaint with the opposite party to take back the computer system and refund the amount received towards the price. THE complainant further alleged that despite the assurance, the opposite party did not take back the computer system and thus cheated. It appears that the complainant has moved the criminal Court for filing a complaint against the. opposite party for the offence of cheating and it is pending. It is further alleged that the opposite party approached the High Court in a Writ Petition No. 573/89 for quashing the. said complaint and that is also pending. Inter alia, serious allegations are made by the complainant against the opposite party as to how he was cheated in the present transaction of selling the computer system. THE complainant also narrated the instances of cheating committed by the opposite party, in relation to the other purchasers of the Computer System. On the basis of the allegations made, in the complaint, the complainant claimed refund of the purchase amount of Rs. 2,02,355/- together with interest at the rate of Rs. 21% p.a. Further claims of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards the damages and Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the future damages are also claimed.

THE opposite party denied the allegations of cheating or any fraud. However, it is stated that the criminal complaint is filed against them. THE opposite party also denied that there was any deficiency in the computer system. THE Opposite Party also denied the claim of the complainant for compensation. The complaint was heard through Shri Gala of H.V. Gala and Company. The opposite party was heard through Shri B.V. Sathe, Advocate. It is not necessary to catalogued the submissions made by both the parties since the complaint is being rejected on the short ground that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Under the claim of the. Consumer Protection Act, Consumer is competent to file a complaint for the reliefs mentioned in Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Here, definition of "complainant" is given in Section 2(1)(b). Under Sub-clause (1) ex Consumer can be. the complainant. Section 2(1)(b), means any person who buys any goods for a consideration but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Thus, any person who buys the goods for commercial purpose is not a consumer and consequently cannot be a complainant to approach a Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency. The National Commission in the case of Western India State Motors v. Sobhag Mal Meena and Others I (1991) CPJ 44 (NC) has held that a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer. In the instant case, the complainant himself has stated in Para 1 of his complaint that he is a businessman in the textile business and deals through his three show rooms at Bombay. In para 2 of the complaint, it is further stated that the complainant had decided to install a computer in the three show rooms for the purpose of his business. Thus by his own showing, the complainant has approached this Commission with a case that he wanted to purchase the computer system in question for commercial purpose. The facts demonstrated in the complaint leave no scope for doubt that the computer system was to be installed for the three show rooms of the complainant for his commercial purpose In view of the legal position, the complainant is not a consumer and consequently cannot claim the reliefs stated in his complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Since the complainant is non suited on short point, we have no option but to reject the complaint of the complainant. In our view, it is not, therefore, necessary to consider the other submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant.

It also appears from the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant has made serious allegations against the opposite party and is pursuing his remedy so far as the criminal law is concerned in the Court of Presidency Magistrate. However, if the complainant, if so advised, wants to pursue his several claims against the opposite party, he is at liberty to pursue it in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The rejection of this complaint will not in any way be treated as bar to his other remedy subject to the provisions of appropriate law. With this observation, we pass the following order: - ORDER The complaint is rejected with no costs. Complaint rejected.