SELECTION POINT BAZAR Vs. KINECTIC ELEVATORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2015 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ('the State Commission'), in First Appeal no. 391 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner constructed a five storeyed commercial market at C - 16 Deendayal Puram, Pilibhit Road, Bareilly and named it as Selection Point Bazar. For the convenience of the customers and pubic they decided to install a passenger lift (capsule type) in the said commercial market. The respondent/ opposite party had been contacted to install the Capsule Type Passenger Lift, for which, the petitioner made a payment of Rs.6,50,000/- to the respondent/ opposite party vide receipt number 355 dated 09.07.2001 and receipt number 356 dated 25.07.2001. The respondent for getting the lift installed, sent few parts of the lift from the go-down of his Firm to the petitioner's firm. All the parts were old and rusted. The petitioner did not accept them and objected to the same. The respondent made a demand of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner on 05.12.2001. Even thereafter, the parts of the lift which were sent were not usable. The lift was installed. It did not work properly, complaint for which was made by the petitioner repeatedly but no satisfactory reply was received. The petitioner then contacted the firm Indo Fuji Elevators and Escalators, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. They checked the lift and they demanded Rs.1,50,000/- for starting the lift. It also came to their knowledge that the material, for which, the respondent had made a demand of Rs. 6,60,000/- actually was worth only Rs.4,18,000/-. Thus, the petitioner had to take the services of the above-named firm Indo Fuji Elevators to bring the lift to a workable condition. Accordingly, the respondent has committed deficiency of service. Being aggrieved, the complaint in question has been filed with the following prayer:

(3.) The respondent/ opposite party filed their written statement and took preliminary objections that the complaint suffers from the basic infirmity that the goods purchased by the complainant company were for commercial purpose and for use in the commercial market and hence, it is against the scope and ambit of Section 2 d (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They further contended that the respondents had been contracted to install two escalators and a lift. The petitioner/ complainant still owed them Rs.1.45 lakhs including Rs.5.00 lakh paid by the complainant towards advance money for the supply of two escalators. They alleged that the lift had been installed and operationalized and functioned for a month and thereafter, due to non-payment of the full and final money the operation of the lift had been put on electrical stoppage, However, instead of honouring the contract the petitioner got it functionalised through another firm. This was done simply to avoid the payment of Rs.6,45,000/- which includes the money for the installation of two escalators. Therefore, the complainant's case was untrue and fraudulent and deserves to be dismissed.