State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Satyawati Chemicals vs M/S.Transparent Energy System Pvt Ltd on 27 June, 2013
C-21-2008
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/08/21
1. M/S.SATYAWATI CHEMICALS
AKIWATE UDYAMNGAR JAYSINGOPLUR,
DIST KOLHAPUR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. L.K.
AKIWATE,
KOLHAPUR
Maharastra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S.TRANSPARENT ENERGY SYSTEM PVT LTD
PUSHPA HEIGHTS, FIRST FLOOR,
BIBWEWADI CORNER, PUNE 411 037
Maharastra
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Complainant
Mr.Anand Patwardhan,, Advocate for the Opp. Party
ORDER
Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar Honble Presiding Member:
1. Heard both Advocates on the point of admission. Perused the written objections filed by the Advocate for the Opponent objecting admission of the complaint. Perused the compilation of judgements relied by the Advocate for the Complainant on the point that the Complainant is a Consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complaint has a checkered history. The complaint pertains to an installation of an industrial refrigeration plant known as ammonia absorption refrigeration plant in the year 2002. Initially the consumer complaint no.207/2003 was filed before the District Forum, Kolhapur, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent and claiming compensation of `10,00,000/-. The complaint was amended twice by carrying out the amendment claiming compensation of `35,55,862/- and `77,32,868/-.
As the compensation amount increased to more than pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, Forum directed the Complainant to present the complaint before the State Commission within a period of 30 days as the Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction vide order dated 07.01.2008.
The order of the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Revision. Again the order of the State Commission was challenged before the National Commission by filing Revision Petition No.529/2009 which is dismissed by order dated 04.03.2009. The Advocate for the Complainant contended that Complainant is a proprietary firm and it is filed by its proprietor L.K. Akiwate, who is engaged in self employment for earning his personal as well as family livelihood and hence, he is a Consumer. In support of his contentions the Advocate relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Anr. V/s.Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., which is reported in III (2009) CPJ 5 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that definition of person in Section 2(1)(m) inclusive not exhaustive and Company is a person within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) r/w section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Ld.Counsel also relied on the decision of Honble National Commission in Harsolia Motors V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in I(2005) CPJ 27 (NC), wherein the National Commission has observed that commercial purpose goods purchased or services hired should be used in activity directly intended to generate profit which is the main aim of commercial purpose. The Advocate contended that in the present complaint the goods are purchased, the machinery is purchased, however, it is not intended to generate the profit, it is a facility and hence, the Complainant is a Consumer. The Advocate drawn our attention to paragraph 23 of the order wherein the National Commission has observed that if the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded within the coverage of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such illustration could be that a manufacturer who is producing one product A for such production he may be required to purchase articles, which may be raw-material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose.
The Ld.Advocate has tried to argue that in the observation of the National Commission in the instant judgement there is further observation wherein it is observed as against this, the same manufacturer if he purchases a refrigerator, a television or an air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose. The Advocate further tried to argue that the machinery purchased is a refrigeration machinery and it will come under the ambit of aforesaid observations of the National Commission. We are unable to digest the argument of the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant. The machinery purchased for manufacturing and its purpose is to earn profit.
3. The Advocate for the Opponent contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation and there is no delay condonation application and the complaint is not filed as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These are, in our opinion, the technical objections, however, the Advocate for the Opponent argued that the machinery purchased by the Complainant is for the commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood or for self employment. He stated that the subject machinery is a cooling plant which is used an ancillary to the main chemical process i.e. chemical products. The Complainant is engaged in manufacturing of range of chemical products. The Complainant produces these chemicals on large commercial scale with a turnover of about US$ 10 million to US$ 50 million and hence, it is not a self employment for earning livelihood. The Advocate for the Opponent had produced on record the details of Complainant Company from the website http://www.satyawatichemicals.com./satyawati chemicals page/contact.htm which is on record. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the Complainant denying financial status and turnover about the Company.
4. In view of the aforesaid observations, we hold that the Complainant is not covered under the Provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as a consumer. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R Consumer complaint stands rejected in limine at the stage of admission.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 27th June, 2013.
[HON'BLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep