(1.) Challenge in this appeal which is filed by the appellant/complainant is to the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai in Complaint Case No.CC/13/174 whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against the respondent/opposite party.
(2.) Briefly stated, the appellant is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of rubber parts for automobile industry. It purchased 219 LED lights for its use from the respondent for a sum of Rs.48,23,084.26P during the period from June 2009 to December 2009. Since the LED lights were not giving expected results, the appellant requested the respondent to replace all the faulty 219 LED lights. As per the allegation, respondent did not do the needful in spite of repeated calls from the appellant, new lights to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs were required to be purchased as also Rs.1,05,000/- additionally incurred for fitting brackets for these lights. Alleging deficiency in service against the respondent company, a consumer complaint was filed by the appellant claiming Rs.48,23,083.26P with interest @ 18% along with Rs.2 lakhs for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. As stated above, vide its impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the State Commission dismissed the complaint in limine on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) (i).
(3.) We have heard learned Shri Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant and perused the record.