This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not refund her the amount till filing of this complaint.

In the petition of complaint it is stated by the Complainant that being a widow she manages her life from the terminal benefits of her husband. On 09.04.2020 she had conducted business in offline mode with assistance from the OP-3. The OP-3 gave her assurance of 0% loss and convinced her to buy 1 lot of crude oil at Rs.1998/- per lot totaling an amount to the tune of Rs.1,99,800/-. Accordingly she invested the aforesaid mount for purchasing the above commodities. On 13.04.2020 the Complainant was informed by the OP-3 that the price of the above deal has suddenly plummeted from Rs.1998/- to Rs.1825/- per lot. Thereafter the Complainant was asked by the OP-3for further payment , which she out of good faith paid Rs.30,000/- on 13.04.2020 and Rs.50,000/- on 16.04.2020, amounting to Rs.80,000/- to make up the loss incurred due to wrong advice of the OP-3. Despite being fully aware of the condition of the market, the OP-3 calculated the average loss incurred  and advised her to buy more lot of crude oil at Rs.1825/- per lot which amounted to Rs.1,82,500/-, which after summing up the cost of the two lots will amount to Rs.1912/- per lot. The Complainant being an aged woman was convinced by the malafide and misleading tricks of the OP3 and invested Rs.1,82,500/-. On 20.04.2020 the Complainant was informed by the OP-3 that the price of crude oil is abruptly falling and the price by the end of the day on estimation would be Rs.955/- per lot. The Complainant at once asked the OP-3 to square of her position with respect to the remaining stock instead of further investment before the closing hour i.e. 5.00 p.m. so that the quantum of loss could be reduced. The Complainant was under the impression that the remaining stock of the commodities were sold off according to her request by the OP-3. The Complainant came to know from the OP-2 that the total loss incurred by her was to the tune of Rs.9,59,200/- i.e. Rs.2884/- per lot. In this manner the Complainant is cheated by the OPs. As the OPs did not take any step to redress her grievance, hence this complaint is initiated by the Complainant.

From the petition of complaint it is clear to us that the Complainant had hired the services of the OPs by investing money in a business for commercial purpose, not earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. In the Section 7 (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it is enumerated that-

‘Consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.’

So the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not permit a person to be a consumer who has availed of services for any commercial purpose. Within the four corners of the complaint no averment is forthcoming that the Complainant had conducted business and invested in the said business for earning her livelihood. In this respect we are to mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the First Appeal no-159/2004, in the case of M/s. Harsolia Motors vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, decided on 03.12.2004, wherein Their Lordships have held that “if the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of Consumer Protection Act. ….. it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words ‘for any commercial purpose’ it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose………”

The abovementioned judgment is applicable in the case in hand as the Complainant had invested money in the business of purchasing crude oil and used to sell out the said oil at a inflated price for earning profit. But unfortunately due to down condition of the market she had faced loss. However as the Complainant had hired the services of the OPs for commercial purpose and purchased the said commodity for earning profit, hence the Complainant cannot be termed as ‘Consumer’ within the purview of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as enumerated in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore as the complainant is not a consumer, this complaint cannot also be termed as ‘Consumer Complaint’.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no-259/2020 is dismissed being not maintainable and without being admitted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Complaint there is no order as to cost. However the Complainant is at liberty to approach before the competent Civil Court, if not barred otherwise.

It is necessary to mention that as the Consumer Complaint has not been admitted, hence the Complainants are also at liberty to get return of the copy of the complaint and copies of the other related document from this Ld. District Commission by making a separate petition to the competent authority of this Commission. The competent authority is hereby directed to take necessary and immediate steps so that the Complainants can get return of the abovementioned documents and papers without any further delay in accordance with law.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

Hon’ble Mrs. Silpi Majumder