The complainant is absent . The complainant Kanchan Roy, Prop. Shakti Hotel has filed complainant against dealer Hari Ram Krishna Kumar as OP No-01 and Op No-02 is the manufacturer alleging deficiency in service as one of the bottles of 7 UP weighing 300ml . contained a ‘ Kokroch ‘ which was disclosed after service to the customer . it is better to quote the protion of the complainant as contained in complainant petition Para-2   “That recent the complainant purchased 300ml x 24 cold drink (7 UP) from the Op Np. No-01 and a bottle of 7 UP served on the table at dinner in his hotle and his customer found a ‘ Kokroch’ in the bottle of 7UP and same time in another bottle on the table have seen a used pouch (rapper) of Pan Parg Masala .” According to the complainant finding of ‘Kokroch’ and wrapper in the bottles of 7 Up are deficiency in service of the OP No-01 & 2 , hence this complainant . 

                                According to definition of consumer vide Sec.2(i) (d) in the definition of consumer it comes under exclusion clause and it is specifically mentioned ….. “ but does not include a person who obtains such goods for re-sale of for any commercial purpose .’ Thus it is apparent that the complainant has purchased the bottle of 7 UP only for re-sale purpose and hence the complainant can not be termed as consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act. . Hence this complainant is not maintainable and this complainant is fit to be rejected . Thus the members have a taken the unanimous view that this complainant is not maintainable and this complainant is accordingly rejected under Sec 12 (3) of the Consumer Protection  Act .