Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/105/2015

SANJAY KUMAR CHANDNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/105/2015
 
1. SANJAY KUMAR CHANDNA
21519/9 WEST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DELHI JAL BOARD
VARUNALYA, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI -110005.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the

threshold. The complaint has been filed in the name of

Associated Trading Company Pvt. Ltd

The complainant is a company incorporated under the

provisions of Indian Companies Act. It had obtained a

water connection from the OP for its use. The

complainant company had thus obtained the services of

the OP for commercial purposes.

The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a

‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d)

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A similar view was taken in the case of

National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed

University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. &

Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the

Hon’ble National Commission held as under :­

“The requisite machine was purchased

for commercial purposes only.

Purchase of a machine by an institute

cannot come within the term “services”

availed by the petitioner, i.e.

Institute, exclusively, for the

purpose of earing its livelihood, by

means of self-
employment.”

In the case of Same

Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III

(2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission

held as under :­

“Para 6...............The complainant is a

limited company and not an individual,

therefore, it cannot be said that the

services of OP were availed by the

complainant for earning of his

livelihood by means of self-
employment. Thus, in our view, the

complainant does not fall within the

definition of ‘consumer’ given under

Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986. On our

aforesaid view, we find support from

the order dated 22.08.2003 of four

Members Bench of this Commission in

O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid

Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”

In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S

Fertilizers (P) Ltd & Anr I appeal no. 723/2006

again a similar view was taken by the National

Commission. This was followed in the case of

BELMAKS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT

LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no 07 of 2013.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not

maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this

order be made available to both the parties

free of cost as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.