SATISH CHANDER GUPTA Vs. KLICK NIXON LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant/petitioner is carrying on the business of Engineers, Consultants and Builders. As per the allegations made in the Complaint, the petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterprise) for the construction of a single seater Hostel of 500 rooms at Sant Harchand Singh Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal, District Sangrur, Punjab. According to the terms of the contract and specifications, the external finish of the hostel building was cement based. The contract also specified the colours of the paint and its quality. It was specifically mentioned in the contract that the paint should be of super-snowcem quality. Accordingly, petitioner purchased 50 bags of super-snowcem for Rs. 40,703 on 13.7.1992 and 12 bags of the same on 11.8.1992 for Rs. 9,768.72 p. from M/s. Capital Building Stores, SCF No. 37, Sector-18C, Chandigarh/respondent No. 2, which is the authorized dealer of the manufacturer, i.e., M/s. Klick Nixon Limited, Snowcem Division, 69, Regal Building, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi/respondent No. l. According to the petitioner, he used the paint as per the instructions of the manufacturer but the use of the contents of different bags of snowcem showed wide variation in colour and shade. Petitioner brought these defects to the notice of the respondents but as he did not receive any reply, the petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short the District Forum ).

(2.) The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 90,027.94 p. along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

(3.) Aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, respondent filed an Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission ). The State Commission, relying upon the Judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 1995 2 CPJ 1 , reversed the Order passed by the District Forum holding that the Complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as the petitioner had bought the snowcem for a commercial purpose and, therefore, was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). That the petitioner did not fall in the Exception created by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works case , as he was not a self-employed person.