Per Hon’ble Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by M/s.Reliance Securities Ltd. whose complaint against respondent/org.opponent was rejected by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. That was rejected at the time of admission of complaint primarily on the ground that the complainant Company had engaged the services of opponent company for its business purpose. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-
Complainant company provides various services pertaining to financial investment etc. Complainant had engaged services of C.S.C. Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. of New Delhi as per direction issued by SEBI to collect the information of its customers. Such information in turn is required to be submitted to the SEBI by the company like Complainant company. The complainant company had paid an amount of `9,92,700/- to the opponent for the agency work entrusted to it by the complainant company after deducting the income tax. According to complainant company, as per agreement opponent company had not carried out the job and kept lacunae in the work entrusted to them and, therefore, complainant company was required to recover an amount of `3,75,621/- from the opponent company and notice to that effect was sent to the opponent company. Despite notice payment was not made and, therefore, complainant company filed consumer complaint.
Before issuing notice to the opponent, forum heard complainant’s advocate. Forum was of the view that the complainant company had engaged opponent company for its business purpose. So such a company cannot be permitted to file consumer complaint. Forum relied upon definition of consumer as mentioned in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which has been amended w.e.f.15/03/2003. Thus, forum was of the view that the complaint as filed by the complainant could not be entertained since services were engaged for commercial purpose. Forum relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Birla Technology Ltd. V/s. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. 2011 CTJ 121 and held that consumer complaint as filed by the complainant cannot be taken cognizance of and as such forum was pleased to reject the complaint at the stage of admission itself. Aggrieved by this order, complainant company filed this appeal.
We heard submissions of Advocate Sujit Mhatre for the appellant and Mr.Kapil Kajla-Director of the respondent.
We are finding that the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission is just and proper. It is sustainable in law. Forum rightly held that complainant had engaged services of opponent/respondent company for commercial purpose. It may have been prompted to do so at the instance of SEBI’s guidelines but the fact remains that appellant company had taken services of respondent company for carrying out its commercial purpose and, therefore, appellant could not be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, we are finding that order of dismissal passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is just and proper and there is no error committed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in rejecting the complaint at the stage of admission itself. Hence we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 27th March, 2012.
