SUBHASH CHAND JOSHI Vs. DARSHAN LAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Subhash Chand Joshi, Proprietor of M/s. Mahavir Industries, Hansi Road, Karnal, has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint against Darshan Lal Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Shalimar Pipes and Plastic Industries, Hansi Road, Karnal, for claiming compensation amounting to Rs.11,38,000/- on account of the actual cost of the unit with interest and compensation for the defective installation of the unit attributing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

(2.) According to the complainant, he is a non-resident Indian, who has migrated from Ghana (West Africa) in January, 1991. After contacting a number of manufacturers of the P. V. C. pipe units, he installed a unit at Karnal after obtaining financial aid from the Haryana Financial Corporation. The unit was installed by the opposite party in May, 1992, for which the complainant had paid the full and final payment. However, the unit did not give proper service from its very installation, which has caused heavy financial loss and harassment to the complainant. It is for the indemnifying of this loss and mental harassment suffered by him that the complainant has filed the present complaint. In the written reply filed by the opposite party, a preliminary objection has been raised that the complainant was not a consumer because the machinery/plant sold by the opposite party was being used for commercial purposes. It has also been pleaded that in one of his communications dated 13.1.1993 the complainant had himself admitted that the plant was running satisfactorily and there was no complaint regarding the functioning of the machinery and the plant, etc. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence - oral as well as documentary.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record. From the very nature of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, it is clear that the complainant had installed the unit for the manufacture of plastic P. V. C. pipes for commercial purposes and it was not an exercise for self-employment. Therefore, the complainant is not covered within the definition of 'consumer' and as such is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. He may, if so advised, have recourse to his remedy before the Civil Court. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.