Order No.  11  dt.  22/08/2016

            Both parties are present. The complainant filed a w/o against the petition filed by the o.p. regarding non maintainability of the case.

            Heard both sides.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant submits that the case was filed by the complainant against the o.p. for deficiency in service and the complainant is a partnership firm and a lift was provided in the hotel of the complainant at Digha and since the o.p. failed and neglected to install the lift in the hotel of the complainant, the complainant had to file this case praying for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost of installation of the lift of Rs.1,40,000/- and Rs.1 lakh for legal compensation.

            In opposing the non maintainability of the case the complainant has stated that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and an agreement was entered into between the complainant and o.p. M/s Adamas Lift and Escalator and even after receiving the 90% of the amount the o.p. failed and neglected to install the lift, for that reason the complainant had to file this case complaining against the o.p. that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. Ld. lawyer for the complainant in support of the contention cited a ruling as reported in (2007) II SC 753 where it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as per Sec 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and the allegation against the Electricity Deptt. that the electric connection was disconnected and to ventilate the grievance, the consumer filed a petition praying for relief and the Hon’ble National Commission rejected the contention of the consumer, but Hon’bE Supreme court held that taking into consideration the dispute raised regarding the alleged service of notice the C.P. Act Sec 2(1)(d) read with Electricity Act Sections 56, 135, 126 and 145 the case is maintainable.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. filed a petition stating interalia that the company had installed one elevator but the company was not paid the due amount of Rs.70,672/- and the 2^nd elevator was not installed due to delay in payment of the amount.

            The main object of the complainant company to run a hotel on receipt of rent from the boarders. The complainant hiring services of installation of lift from the o.p. purely for commercial purpose with a motive to earn profit from business but not for earning livelihood by way of self employment. As such, the case is not maintainable in this Forum.

            In support of the said contention ld. lawyer for the o.p. cited two rulings reported in III (2013) CPJ 464 (NC). Installation of elevators were  to be installed in hotel run for commercial purpose, the complainant not within the purview of consumer, District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. In another ruling as reported in 2013 (3) CPR 465 (NC) wherein it was held that a partnership firm which is transacting business of printing and publication of newspapers cannot be said to be consumer. Relying on those decisions ld. lawyer argued that the complainant is doing business of running hotel, as such no case can be filed in District Forum since in case of business C.P. Act is not applicable.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the entire materials on record it is crystal clear that though the complainant had stated that the complainant is running a hotel at Digha and the said hotel is run by a registered partnership firm, but main object of the said business is for commercial purpose and though the complainant has claimed that for the purpose of earning livelihood the said partnership business was started but the facts and circumstances clearly shows that the hotel was being run for commercial purpose and the rulings as cited by ld. lawyer for the o.p. are applicable in this case and accordingly, we hold that the case is not maintainable since running of business by the complainant and the deficiency in service in respect of said running of business by installing lift does not come within the purview of Sec 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Accordingly, we hold that the case is not maintainable.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            That the CC No.630/2014 is disposed of on contest by holding that the case is not maintainable.