This appeal is directed against the Order of Ld. DCDRF, South Dinajpur dated 28/3/2017 in reference to CC No. 33 of 2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant Sri Krishnapada Mandal filed a consumer complaint under section 12 before the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur to the effect that being the proprietor of C.R Sen, he used to run contractory and order supplying business for rendering service to the people and to provide his self-livelihood and for that reason he purchased a motor grader from respondent no. 1 which was financed by respondent no. 2 on 30/8/2016 and the said grader was delivered to him on 23/9/2016. Since delivery of said motor grader, it was found defective which was consuming more engine oil and within the guaranty period the

 Appellant reported, the abnormality and defectiveness of the machinery to respondent/Op no. 1 time to time but no service was provided for removing the defect of the same motor grader and it was deficiency of service on the part of respondent no.1 and 2 and for that reason he prayed compensation due to deficiency of service on the part of the respondent/OP no. 1 and 2 in spite of warranty period was still in existence. OP no. 2 that is Branch Manager, Srei Equipment Finance Limited  filed a petition before the Ld. Forum attacking maintainability of the case before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum after hearing both sides, has came to a conclusion that the complainant/appellant was not the consumer as per provision of sec 2(D) of the CP Act, 1986 and for that reason the Forum was pleased to hold that the instant complainant was not maintainable in law and therefore it was dismissed.

Being aggrieved with this order, this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case and unauthorizedly hold that the consumer complaint was not maintainable in law and this defective order of the Ld. Forum should be set aside. The respondent no. 1 and 2 that is Authorized Signatory of Tractor India, Private Limited and Branch Manager, Srei Equipment Finance Limited has contested the appeal by appointing their Ld. Advocates.  They also have filed some documents along with additional evidence before the Forum by affidavit. The appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Advocates of both sides.

Decision with reasons.

Fact remains that the consumer complainant Sri. Krishna Pada Mandal in his consumer complainant categorically mentioned that he has purchased the Tractor for the proprietorship farm styled as C.R. Sen whereas the respondents by affidavit countered the case of the complainant about the non-existence of C.R.  Sen Farm and categorically mentioned by producing corporate affairs website report where it is categorically mentioned that C.R. Sen is a private limited company which was registered on 1/8/2016 as per provisions of Company Act, 2013 and the consumer complainant Sri Krishnapada Mandal and Tapati Mandal were the joint directors of the said company.

After hearing the valuable argument canvassed before this Commission by Ld. Advocate of both sides, it appears to the Commission that CR sen construction private limited, is a Ltd company as per provisions of companies act 1956 and Amendment Act, 2013 (Annexure-A) as reflected in the additional evidence of respondents. It is categorically incorporated in the consumer protection. Act as to who are the consumers and what are the consumer disputes. Consumer means any person who buys any goods or articles but does not include a person obtains such goods for resell or for any commercial purpose. Here Sri Krishnapada Mandal has purchased a motor grader not as a sole owner of the CR Sen company limited but in his individual capacity. He has purchased a motor grader as one of the joint director of the company. We know very well that commercial purpose does not include goods used by a person or bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Here in this case, the motor grader was not purchased by any individual but by a director of a company and activities of the company carried out are to be treated as commercial activities for its shareholders and while a company purchased any article for the purpose of activities of the company then such purchase cannot be treated as purchased for providing activities for maintaining the livelihood of any individual.

Therefore, in our opinion, ld. Forum has rightly observed the exact provision of law in this score and correctly opined that the appellant in the instant case was running activities which was exclusively commercial in nature and for that reason the consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed. This commission found no error in the order of Ld. Forum and the impugned order does not invite any interference.

Thus, the appeal fails.

Hence, it is

Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same, is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and a copy of order be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur by e-mail.