DATE OF FILING                    :     20-11-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      22-01-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     23-07-2014.

M/S. Technomake,

having its registered office at P-50/3,

Benaras Road, P.S. Liluah, District – Howrah,

being represented by its authorized signatory

Sri Krishna Maji,

son of late Brindaban Maji

of  P-50/3, Benaras Road, P.S. Liluah,

District – Howrah. ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.      Asian Tools Industries,

2.      Danis Masih,

3.      Mantu Masih,

both 2 and 3 are the partners of o.p. no. 1 firm,

all of C-94, Focal Point, Patiala – 147 004

and also of  26/1, Jagtar Nagar,

Patiala – 147001.

4.      ICICI  Bank ( Branch Manager ),

Salkia, Howrah  – 711106.----------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to refund the advance money of Rs. 2,60,000/- together with interest and to pay compensation of  Rs. 6  lakhs together with litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-  as the o.p. in spite of receiving of the advance money failed to deliver goods namely 22 mode hob which are required for the complainant manufacturing business within the stipulated period.  

2.                  In spite of service of notice the o.p. nos. 1, 2 & 3 did not appear. Only the o.p.

no. 4 ICICI appeared and filed the written version stating that he is not a necessary party in this case. So his name has been expunged. 

3.        Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form ?

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               The complainant by filing affidavit has declared that the complainant is a reputed business concern. The same proposition has been reiterated by his advocate in his letter dated 28-10-2013 stating that the complainant is a reputed business concern and uses to do labour job for gear cutting and general order supply.

           Therefore, it is palpable that the complainant is a business concern. The declaration by him that this business is the only source of income of his family cannot element the embargo as enjoined in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii). The business run by the complainant is glaringly for commercial purpose and as such it is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant is not a consumer. The point is accordingly disposed of.  

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 397 of 2013 ( HDF 397 of 2013 )  be and the same is dismissed not being maintainable before this Forum.

      No order as to costs.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.