Both the parties appeared before this court. Placed their respective submissions against each other regarding maintainability of the complaint petition.

      The petition dated 27/06/22 (maintainability petition) as filed by the OP is objected by the complainant.

Perused the petition which is under the content that the case is barred under the statutory provision of CP Act under section 2(1d) at present (7) of the same. The Complainant is a proprietor of Daya Electrical Works and running established business in the style of M/S Daya Electrical Works for selling Plumbing Items for huge profit purchased from OPs manufacturing company. Complainant brings the items from this OP manufacturing Falcon Tubes PVT. Ltd. Items were selected by  the complainant and items were dispatched by the OP company out of order and this complainant made payment in part by part. So the complainant purchased the materials from OP for commercial purpose for resale. So the resale never comes under the definition of Consumer. Practically this case was filed with ill motive to avoid the payment of goods from the OP on giving an invalid cheque when Ld court under  NI Act directed to pay the complainant of Rs. 1,36,473/- (one lakh thirty six thousand four hundred seventy three) as compensation. So this complaint should be rejected under provision of law.

          Objector/ Complainant took the plea of “livelihood” and averted that he is valid consumer as shop keeper.

Heard both the parties.

           Perused entire complaint petition and filing documents behind the complaint.

          On perusal of entire material in record i.e. the bills of purchase and the character of purchased materials. This Commission opines/ observes that obviously matters in purchase by the complainant are for commercial purpose and for reselling the same to the consumer in true sense who purchased for their own use.

         Eventually all these documents as filed by the complainant under “Annexure-A” restricts this commission to consider submission of the Objector/ Complainant the point of “livelihood” behind filing this complaint. The Commission observes “livelihood” must be accompanied with “own use”.

Accordingly this complaint is statutorily barred under the law of maintainability.

         Petitioner- Manufacturer succeeds as manufacturer against the retailer- complainant, in other words retailer is not entitled to file any case under CP Act against the manufacturer. Only consumer can file.

Thus Complaint Petition is rejected. Case is Disposed of.