SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. CYBER EXPO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 27.3.2008 of State Commission, Delhi whereby it was directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation to the respondent/ complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Respondent is the Seminars and Exhibitions Division of Cyber Media India Ltd. and is engaged in the business of organizing seminars and exhibitions in the Information Technology Industry. It was appointed by the Computer Society of India ( for short CSI) as its Show Manager for the 33rd Annual Conference which was to be held at New Delhi from 16 -20th September, 1998. Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium is under the control of the appellant. Appellant allocated the area of 2000 sq. mts. (full hall) to the respondent who paid amounts of Rs. 1.00 lakh by way of security deposit and Rs. 12,16,000 on 3.7.1998 and Rs. 9,74,000 on 14.9.1998 towards rental charges, air -conditioning charges and preparation/dismantling charges. It was alleged that on 16.9.1998 at around 2.00 p.m., the exhibition was inaugurated by the Vice -President of India. Air -conditioning was insufficient to cool the indoor stadium and the visitors and delegates who were profusely sweating, started coming out therefrom. On 18.9.1998 things went from bad to worse after the crowd started visiting the stalls. Condition inside was hot and suffocating. As an emergency measure the appellant provided 85 pedestal fans. It was further alleged that the respondent was informed by the appellant that out of five air -conditioning plants, two had not been functioning for the last few months. On 17.9.1998, the third unit broke down. On 18.9.1998, the fourth unit also broke down leaving only one unit to cool the entire hall. It was also stated that because of rains on 19.9.1998 the roof of the stadium started leaking at various points in the hall causing great embarrassment to the respondent and inconvenience to the people. Due to rain on 20.9.1998, the water began to drip heavily in about 15 locations above the exhibition stalls at around 12 noon. Attributing deficiency in service, complaint was filed by the respondent claiming refund of Rs. 4.00 lakh paid towards air -conditioning charges together with the interest @ 10% p.a. and also compensation of Rs. 10.00 lakh towards injury to reputation, etc. Appellant contested the complaint by filing written version. By way of preliminary objection, it was pleaded that the respondent is not a 'consumer' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, the averments regarding deficiency in service were denied.

(3.) THRUST of the argument advanced by Sh. Manish Kumar for the appellant was that the respondent is engaged in commercial activity and had charged money from CSI for organizing the event in the space allocated by the appellant and it is, thus, not a 'consumer' and the complaint was not maintainable under the Act. Word 'consumer' is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is in two parts. After amendment by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (62 of 2002), Sub -clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Section 2(1) reads thus":