Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995

14. It was argued by the counsel for the Ops that the complainant does not fall under the category of 'consumer' as the complainant is a firm, therefore, the electricity was used for commercial purposes. To support this preposition, the counsel for the Ops has referred to the judgment 2015(2) CLT 487 "M/s Fuchasia Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. DLF Commercial Developers Limited & Anr.". In that case, private limited company booked commercial space. Referring the explanation to Section 2(1)(d), it was observed that complainant being a juristic person, the explanation does not come into the play, therefore, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Whereas counsel for the complainant argued that firstly it is not a commercial connection. The complainant availed the electricity supply for residential purposes also, therefore, it falls under the definition of consumer. To support this contention, he has referred the full bench judgment of Hon'ble National Commission titled as "Crompton Greaves Limited & Anr. Versus Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited & Ors.", Consumer Case No. 51 of 2006, First Appeal No. 536 of 2016 13 decided on 8.7.2016 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission relied upon the judgment "Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute", reported in 1995 (3) SCC 583 wherein it was observed that Parliament intended to restrict the benefits of the Act to ordinary consumers purchasing goods either for their own consumption or even for use in some small venture, which they may have embarked upon in order to make a living as distinct from large scale manufacturing or processing activity carried on for profit. Therefore, if a transaction of purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services is not aimed at earning profits or advancing the business activities of the purchaser, such a transaction will not be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further followed by the Hon'ble National Commission in judgment "Duggirala Prasad Babu Vs. M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.", Revision Petition No. 428 of 2013, decided on 4.3.2014 and accordingly, the Hon'ble National Commission held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 950 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1