DINESH SOMANI & ANR. Vs. JMD CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant has filed the joint complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in respect of contract work given to the opposite party for construction at the factory premises site of the complainant. It is not necessary to enumerate the facts in detail facts because we are concerned with the issue of maintainability.

(2.) Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act defines the term 'consumer' as under:

(3.) On bare reading of the above, it is clear that definition of consumer has been provided with inbuilt exception in the statute excluding the purchaser of the goods hirer of the services for commercial purpose. In the instant case, admittedly the complainant had hired/availed the services of the opposite party for construction of factories, namely, M/s. Jai Balaji Industries and M/s. Jai Mata Di Industries. Thus, it is obvious that services of the opposite party were hired/availed by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. construction and running of industry for making profits. Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act particularly when it is not the case of the complainant that he is covered within the explanation to section which gives restricted meaning to the term 'commercial purpose'. As the complainant is not a consumer, he cannot raise the consumer dispute. Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss the complaint Complaint is accordingly dismissed. This order will not come in the way of the complaint to avail of his remedy by approaching the Civil Court on the same cause of action. Complaint dismissed.