CHANDER BHUSHAN Vs. JAYESH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the complaint case. The complaint relates to goods which are said to be not of prescribed standard and description for which he paid the price to the O. Ps. The complainant has sought the refund of a sum of Rs.86,100/- which is the balance payable after deducting the costs of cable which is Rs.13,900/- from the deposit of Rs.1 lac. Interest has also been claimed of a sum of Rs.5,33,000/- and compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental torture. Rs.10,000/- has been claimed as costs of litigation while a sum of Rs.2,500/- has been claimed as clerkage charges which includes the dictation, typing and stationary etc. The total claim is of a sum of Rs.5,70,500/-. The complainant alleged in Para 1 of the complaint that he is an educated young man who had desired to set up his self employment work by taking loan from the Bank under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna and undergoing training for the purpose from the District Industries Centre (DIC), Mohali.

(2.) The complainant had approached the O. P. No.1 Shri Jayesh Mehta for arranging supply of Cable T. V. system and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in advance. A loan of Rs.95,000/- was sanctioned by the U. C. O. Bank vide Annexure C-1. After receiving the cheque of Rs.95,000/-, the O. P. No.1 returned Rs.5,000/- only by account payee cheque and retained the remaining amount. The O. P. No.1 thus received a total payment of Rs.1 lac in advance. The O. P. No.1 supplied equipment on 26.10.1997 and issued a cash memo of Rs.58,600/- vide cash memo Annexure C-3. A few days later, O. P. No.1 personally brought some more material valued at Rs.18,650/- but did not give cash memo for this material. The O. P. No.1, it is alleged, in all supplied material worth Rs.77,250/- and still the balance of Rs.22,750/- was retained by the O. P. No.1. It was alleged that the material supplied by O. P. No.1 was the defective material as was noticed by the technician Shri Mukesh. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of O. P. No.1 who assured that the same will be replaced. However, the O. P. No.1 did not provide the replacement of the defective material.

(3.) From perusal of the complaint, it is evidently clear that the complainant was engaged in commercial activity and in connection with the commercial purpose, he had transactions regarding the supply of material with the O. P. No.1. The complaint relates to goods. The definition of a consumer under Sec.2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act] excludes a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The complainant, however, sought his inclusion in the definition of 'consumer' under the explanation appended to Sec.2 (1) (d) of the C. P. C. Act, which laid down as under : "[explanation.-For the purposes of Sub-clause (i), "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]"