NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 12/03/2010 in Complaint No. 28/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. M/S. HI-TECH FOOD PRODUCTSMr.Sachin Surwase, Proprietor, Gat No.1556,Shelaw Wasti, Near Ganesh Engg.Chikhali, Taluka Haveli, PuneMaharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. CORPORATION BANK & ANR.General Manager, Pimpri Chinchwad Branch, Raka Chambers, Chinchwad Station,Pune - 411019Maharashtra2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIAPlot No.488, S.no.1109, Ground Floor,Jeevan Shree Building, Ganesh Khind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Near Pune Central Mall,Pune - 411005Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 23 Jul 2010
ORDER
Aggrieved by the dismissal of its complaint on the threshold by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ( in short the State Commission) vide order dated 12.03.2010, the aggrieved complainant has filed the present appeal. The State Commission has unsuited the complaint, primarily, on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as appearing under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have heard Mr. Santosh Paul, learned counsel representing the appellant and have considered his submissions. Although we do not agree with the line of reasoning given by the State Commission in reaching the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer because he had ventured to establish small scale industry but going by the averments and admissions made by the complainant itself in the opening paragraph of the complaint, we are of the view that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act to seek the kind of relief which he sought in the complaint in question. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed, although on different grounds with the observation that the appellant will be at liberty to pursue his remedy in accordance with law and in doing so, he may seek the advantage of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P. S. G. Industrial Institute 1995 SCC (3) 583.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
