6.... 25/10/2019...       

Record is taken up for passing order on the point of maintainability of the case.

Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for both the parties. Perused the petition of complaint and the W/V filed by the O.P. and also the other materials on record filed by the complainant. Considered all these.

A mere perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 75,000/- from O.P. no.1 for the purpose of flourishing his business. He has a business and the said business is conducted in a shop room situated at Diamond Harbour. This is so stated by the complainant himself in paragraph 2 of his complaint. It is submitted on behalf of O.P. no. 1 that the complainant took the loan for commercial purpose and therefore he is not a consumer within the definition of section 2 (1) (d), CP Act, 1986. According to him, the case is therefore not maintainable.

We do find sufficient merits in the submission made on behalf of O.P. no. 1. The complainant is a business man. There is no averment in his petition of complaint that the said business is run by him for earning livelihood by way of self-employment. In absence of such statement, it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer under section 2 (1) (d), CP Act, 1986. This being so, the instant complaint appears to be not maintainable in law.

                                                ORDERED

That the instant complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable in law.