DR. NEELAM GUPTA W/O DR. ANIL GUPTA, DR. ATMA RAM EYE HOSPITAL BHIKHI, TEHSIL & DISTRICT Vs. ONIDA SWTICH GEAR GT ROAD, CAMPA COLA FACTORY SUA ROAD, MAKKAR COLONY, GALI NO. 2, OPP. BALVINDER TOOLS DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dated 15.1.2016 in first appeal No.694/2013 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum, Mansa that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed consumer complaint against the respondent/opposite party alleging that on being approached by the representative of the opposite party Shri I.P. Singh the complainant placed an order for the purchase of one voltage stabiliser priced at Rs.1,27,000.00. In furtherance of the order the complainant allegedly paid Rs.70,000.00 in cash against the receipt and issued two cheques worth Rs.41,000.00 and Rs.9,000.00 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Bhikhi in favour of the opposite party. The representative of the opposite party allegedly assured that the ordered stabiliser shall be installed within 15 days along with the warranty of two years from the date of installation. It is the case of the complainant that opposite party despite of having received the consideration amount failed to supply and install the stabiliser within the period of 15 days and also failed to provide the service as agreed. On the aforesaid allegations, the complainant raised the consumer dispute.

(3.) The respondent/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that the subject goods were sought to be purchased for commercial purpose i.e. running of the hospital. Therefore, in view of the exception carved out in Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act, the petitioner is not a consumer and has no locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint. On merits, it was alleged that the complainant visited the opposite party in Ludhiana and placed the order for stabiliser MCB, electric outer panel worth Rs.1,27,000.00 and Rs.25,000.00 respectively exclusive of the other taxes. Against the said order the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,000.00 in cash and Rs.50,000.00 by way of two cheques. It was pleaded by the opposite party that the ordered goods were to be delivered after manufacture. However, on 27.3.2012 the complainant visited the opposite party and took MCB and electric outer panel. When the complainant was asked to take the stabiliser the complainant stated that her purpose of purchasing stabiliser had been fulfilled and she was not in need of the stabiliser. The complainant, thus, prayed for refund of the balance amount after adjusting the cost of MCB and outer panel Rs.26,375.00. Other allegations on merits were denied.