Order no.  3 dt. 4.11.2022

This case record is taken up for consideration for passing order in the matter of admission hearing.

The argument of the complainant side has already been heard. Considered submission.

Perused the petition complaint and its collected documents.

On close examination of the petition of complaint and its connected documents it appears that the complainant has filed this case for passing direction to the opposite parties to exchange the machine in question or to pay amount of Rs. 17,50,00/- to the complainant with 12% interest and for other reliefs.

After going through the materials of this case record it appears that complainant has purchased the said machine for running business.

Now the question is whether the complainant’s business by installing the said machine is for commercial purpose or not? In this regard to come within meaning of “Consumer” as defined in the act, the complainant will have to establish that services were availed exclusively for purposes of earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. There cannot be ay straightjacket formula and so such question must have to be decided by considering the facts of each case depending upon the documents placed on record. This legal principle has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank and it is reported in II (2022) CPJ (SC).

On the background of the above noted legal provision this District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant has purchased the said machine for commercial purpose and so this case is not maintainable.

In the result,

it is accordingly,

ordered

that this complaint case no. 208 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed.

No order is passed as to costs.