1. - IN this complaint, under Section 12 r/w Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 9,13,700/- from the M/s. Escorts Ltd., Faridabad.
2. IT is the case of the complainant that it is a public limited company carrying on the activities of quarry granites, make blocks, cut and polish the same and export the same.
The complainant, to carry on its activity effectively and efficiently, placed an order on 27.1.92 for 2 numbers of Escorts C-8000 Hydraulic Mobile Cranes. The complainant made an advance payment of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Opposite Party. The complainant made further payment of a sum of Rs. 8,78,988/- on 30.3.92 to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party despatched the first crane from Faridabad after about 15 days from the date of receipt of the said cheque for a sum of Rs. 8,78,988/- on 21.4.92 and it reached the complainant site after 15 days from the date of despatch. It is the further case of the complainant that he made payment of a further sum of Rs. 10,78,988/- on 21.5.92 to the Opposite Party for the second crane; the second crane was despatched on 27.5.92 from Faridabad, which reached Walayar Check Post, Kerala, during the first week of June, 1992. The second crane was withhold by the Inspector of Sales Tax. The Opposite Party did not arrange for its release, in consequence of which the Inspector of Sales Tax issued a notice to give Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 4,31,640/-. The complainant was forced to execute the Bank guarantee for the release of the crane. In the meanwhile the Deputy Commissioner initiated action against the complainant and imposed a penalty for a sum of Rs. 4,31,640/- and recovered the same from the Bank which had given the Bank guarantee.
It is the further case of the complainant that he filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.5283/92 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore and obtained an order of injunction restraining the Bank from making the payment of the Bank guarantee amount to the Sales Tax authorities, but in the meanwhile the Bank had already made the payment of the same to the Sales Tax authorities.
3. THE crane also remained under repair as it had suffered loss for want of after-sale-service by the Opposite Party. THE complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the Opposite Party in a sum of Rs. 9,13,700 /- on various counts.
The Opposite Party filed its version and averred that the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer'' under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as purchase of the cranes made by the complainant was for commercial purpose. The Opposite Party further averred that the complainant has already initiated a legal action against the authorities of the Sales Tax in the Hon''ble High Court of Kerala and so the matter is sub-judice before the Competent Court. The Opposite Party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed.
4. WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties regarding the maintainability of the complaint. WE perused the pleadings of the parties.
The articles purchased are the Hydraulic Mobile Cranes for quarrying granites. The complainant-company is a public limited company having been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act of 1986. These facts and the circumstances would clearly go to show that the purchase of the cranes was for commercial purpose. The purpose for which the complainant has bought the goods, is admittedly for commercial purpose within the meaning of the definition of expression ''consumer'' under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Having regard to these facts, the complainant is not a ''consumer'' under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. So the complaint is untenable under the Act. ORDER In the Result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.
