Heard Sh. Tarun Matta, learned counsel for the appellant.
This appeal has been preferred with a delay of 3 days’.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application.
The delay in filing the appeal has been explained by the appellant in the delay condonation application.
We are satisfied with the reasons shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 3 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission.
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 21 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.
The District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that the appellant – complainant does not fall under the definition of “consumer” provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The word “consumer” has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the following manner:
“(d) “consumer” means any person who –
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
By a perusal of the above definition of “consumer”, it is evident that the consumer does not include a person who obtains goods or avails of services for any commercial purpose. In the instant case, the appellant – complainant is a private limited company and is having a C.C. Limit account with Canara Bank – respondents. In para 1 of the consumer complaint, the complainant has clearly stated that the complainant is engaged in manufacturing and sale of seeds etc. and in relation to the said business, is having a C.C. Limit account with the bank.
The fact that the appellant – complainant is a private limited company and is maintaining a C.C. Limit account with the bank in relation to the business carried on by it and that the complainant is engaged in commercial activity, is sufficient to conclude that the complainant does not fall under the definition of “consumer”.
The District Forum has given a detailed and categorical finding on the issue. We find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. The appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed summarily at the threshold. However, the appellant – complainant would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum. No order as to costs.
