19.07.2017                       Today the case is fixed for order.  The O.Ps. filed Non-Maintainability Petition in early date on which hearing was taken up from both the sides in length.  The O.Ps. raised objection on the point of having of “Consumer” on complainant as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. 

On perusal of materials available on record it is found that, the vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD-23-A-4846 is in the name of “MS KOSHAL CARRIER” partner Satnam Singh, hypothecated by the Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,BBSR. The complainant namely Netranand Pradhan is the Power of Attorney Holder of said Satnam Singh.

 MS KOSHAL CARRIER is a partnership firm executed through a Deed of Partnership on dtd. 04.12.2009 and as per clause-13 of the said deed, the executant can represent his firm. As per clause-7, the executant is entitled to get remuneration of Rs.5,000/- per month on the basis of clause-8 but also as per clause-10 the executant receives 50% share of the net profit and loss after payment of interest and remuneration to the partners.  Further, the said Satnam Singh  has executed several power of attorney in favour of different individuals on his individual capacity in relation to several commercial vehicles on which several Consumer Cases have been filed in this Hon’ble Forum itself. As per complaint petition the said Satnam Singh who has executed the power of attorney in favour of the complainant due to his involvement in other business and he could not ply the said vehicle in question. It reveals that the said Ms Koshal Carrier has taken several commercial loans. It also reveals that the executant of power of attorney being a partner of the partnership firm entitles for profits with remuneration has taken several commercial loans and running a large volume with variety of businesses which cannot be treated to be maintaining of his merely livelihood but for earning profits thereon.  

However in the interest of justice after admission hearing from the complainant he was provided interim relief until further order which was vacated as per law and after appearance of O.Ps the facts of the dispute have come out. 

Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the complainant failed to prove as per the definition of ‘Consumer’ mentioned U/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the petition filed by the O.Ps is hereby allowed. Hence, the Complaint Case is not maintainable and dismissed.

                 Accordingly the case is disposed of.

            Member (W)                          Member                                          President.