SWARAJ MAZDA LTD Vs. MOHAN KUMAR BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition against the Order dated 18th of October, 1991 in Appeal No. 186/90 of the State Commission of Maharashtra. The State Commission set aside the Order of the District Forum which had held that the respondent complainant wanted to purchase a van for business viz., commercial purpose and that, therefore, he was not a "consumer " under the Consumer Protection Act. It remanded the case back to the District Forum for fresh adjudication.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the Order of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission and the Revision Petition before us, it appears that there has been a complete misapprehension of the facts of this case.

(3.) THE facts stated above clearly indicate that there has been no sale of any goods nor had the revision petitioner undertaken to render any service for hire. The amount of Rs. 3,87,000/- was deposited by bank draft as consideration for the purchase of a mini bus; it was not a hire amount for any service to be rendered by respondent No. 2 Golden Automobiles; it was the price of the goods to be purchased. The District Forum was in error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the intended purchase was fora commercial purpose. The complaint ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the Complainant was not a Consumer since he had neither purchased any goods nor hired any service for consideration. The State Commission was in error in allowing the complaint in appeal by holding that the failure to provide the mini bus or, in alterative, to refund the amount immediately amounts to deficiency in service when no service had been undertaken to be performed by the Revision Petitioner nor any consideration paid for hiring any service.