M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant/appellant, had purchased bread, from the opposite parties, in order to supply the same, as per the directions of the Government to the students of primary schools, in the State of Pondicherry. Some of the students, who had consumed the bread, vomited, resulting admission in the hospital, followed by treatment, thereby creating health problems to the school students. Thereafter, the bread supplied by the opposite parties, was subject to test, which revealed, they were contaminated, unfit for human consumption. Thus alleging and accusing, as if, they have sold contaminated bread, causing loss of reputation to the complainant, resulting sufferings also, complaint was filed for a total claim of Rs.19,50,000/-, in addition to directing the opposite parties not to manufacture hazardous goods and desist from offering service hazarduous in nature, in addition to cost.
(3.) The office of the District Forum, Chennai(South), where the complaint was filed felt that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the case is not maintainable and to decide the maintainability, the case was posted before the District Forum. The President of the District Forum, by going through the averments, and hearing (which is denied), passed an order, that the case in respect of which the claim was made, is purely commercial purpose, not coming within the definition of the consumer, and in this view it returned the complaint with direction to approach the Civil court, and the order reads, Returned : Heard the counsel in the open court. Perusal of records reveals. The service rendered by OP1 and OP2 do not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Bread supplied by Opposite parties 1 and 2 is purely a commercial purpose as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has to seek remedy before competent Civil Court. which is challenged by the complainant before this Commission.;