PERTECH COMPUTERS LTD. vs UNITED DISTRIBUTORS

THIS revision petition has been filed by the opposite party against the order dated 10.7.93 of the District Forum-II. Briefly the facts are that the complainant placed an order with the opposite party for supply of a computer on 15.3.88 and paid Rs. 1,000/-as advance money vide cheque dated 19.3.88. It was stated by the opposite party in the supply order that the delivery would be notified to the complainant. It is alleged that he wrote a letter dated 11.12.89 to the respondent that they had failed to supply the computer and he was no longer interested in the deal. Consequently they requested the opposite party to refund the advance. The opposite party, in reply to the letter informed them that their action of cancellation of the order was unilaterally and therefore they were entitled to damages equal to 10% of the price of the computer. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party.

THE opposite party contested the claim and inter-alia pleaded that they were not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, on the other hand they were entitled to get damages amounting to Rs. 4,100/-from them. THE learned District Forum directed the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,000/ to the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the deposit to the date of payment and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, within 30 days to the complainant. THE opposite party has come up in appeal against the said order. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner is that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Consequently, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

We have duly considered the argument and find substance therein. The complainant is carrying on profession/business and placed the order for the computer for the purpose of their business/profession. The word ''consumer'' has been defined in the Act in Section 2(1)(d), according to which ''consumer'' means any person who buys any goods for a consideration... but does not include person who obtains such goods... for any commercial purpose. From the definition it is evident that if the goods are purchased for commercial purpose by any person he does not fall within the definition of the word ''consumer''. In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant, is carrying on profession and they purchased the computer for that purpose. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is not a ''consumer'' as defined in the Act.

THE second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the case was of sale of goods simplicitor and in the case of purchase agreement the complainant cannot file complaint under the Act for damages. We have considered the argument and find force in it as well. It is not necessary to dilate upon this point as it has been settled by the National Commission Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Bhuvana Vishwanathan & Others, II (1993) CPJ 172 (NC). In that case the complainant placed an order for Maruti 1000 cc car with the opposite party which was to be supplied by the latter within a period of two weeks from the date of the payment of the price. THE complainant paid whole of the amount to the opposite party but the car was not supplied, as agreed between them. THE State Commission directed the opposite parties to pay interest on the deposits to the complainant. M/s. Maruti Udyog went up in appeal before the National Commission, which was accepted with the observations that that was a case of sale of goods simpliciter and did not involve rendering of service for any consideration. Consequently, they were not liable to pay any interest to the complainant. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that the District Forum, under the Act, had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the revision petition, set-aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs. Revision allowed.