Ld. Adv. for the complainant is present today and files hazira. Perused the relevant documents filed in this case. From the verification of the case record, it is found that one Ratnakkar Acharya bearing consumer No. 01003595 is the authorized consumer of Ops-CESU. But the complaint was filed by one Parbati Das who is no way connected to the present case in dispute as per provisions of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act. Section-2(1)(D)(II) of the Act says “ Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other that in 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 approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for release or for any commercial purpose.

                        Moerso, the complainant and has not filed any single scrap of paper to appreciate this Forum regarding applicability of the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act for which complainant is not at all a consumer and the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. This type of C.C.Case bearing No. 73.2013 was filed before this Forum and rejected on the same ground on dt. 01.11.2014. Hence, the present case is rejected.