Consumer vs. Commercial: Bakery Equipment Case Defines Limits of Protection Act.
05 June 2024
Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights
A bakery owner in Pune has been unsuccessful in his appeal against a dismissed consumer complaint regarding undelivered bakery equipment. The National Consumer Commission (NCC) upheld the State Commission's decision, finding that the bakery owner did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
The bakery owner, operating under the name Iyengar Bangalore Bakery, had placed an order with M/s Heat Win for bakery equipment valued at Rs. 27,81,270/-. He claimed the company failed to deliver the equipment despite receiving full payment. Additionally, he argued that the business was his primary source of income, qualifying him as a consumer under the Act.
The State Commission, however, disagreed. They determined the equipment's high capacity and the large purchase amount indicated a commercial venture, not self-employment. M/s Heat Win further argued they had delivered a portion of the order and provided a full refund for the undelivered equipment.
The bakery owner appealed to the NCC, contesting the State Commission's decision. He maintained the equipment was for his livelihood and presented evidence of a bank loan secured to finance the purchase. However, the NCC found his claim of returning the received refund to M/s Heat Win lacked concrete evidence. Conversely, M/s Heat Win presented bank statements demonstrating the full refund amount deposited into the bakery owner's account.