ORDER                                    Dated:  16-02-2017

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. On 19.04.2016 OP has moved an application U/o VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) , CPC for rejection of the complaint  and alleged that  complainant has not disclosed the fact that M/s Sharma Medicare Private Ltd which is a private ltd company and duly incorporated under the provisions of the Company Act, 1956 is also one of the co-applicant as well as applicant in the three different loans  bearing nos. 80411621 (amounting to Rs. 20,55,000/-), 80411616 ((amounting to Rs. 11,13,900/-) and 80405936 (amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/-)  availed from OP1 and the complainants are not consumers as they have taken  loan against property from OP1 for business/ commercial purpose  and prayed to  reject this complaint  on the ground of no cause of action as well as that present complaint is barred by law.
2. On 16.11.2016 complainants filed reply to this application and submitted that Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to the Consumer Proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for limited purpose and the Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the consumer proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 hence the said application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. We have heard the arguments on the application U/o VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) , CPC and perused file  on the ground of cause of action as well as that the present complaint is barred by law.
4. Considered the application its reply as well as allegations made in the complaint.
5. As jurisdiction is to be decided on the basis of allegations made in the complaint only ,therefore, perused complaint. In para no. 4 of the complaint, complainants alleged that loans obtained in the name of company (M/s Sharma Medicare Pvt. Ltd) , therefore, company is  co-applicant with the complainants . Infact loans from the OPs has obtained for the business of the company which is a ‘commercial’ purpose. It is pertinent to mention herein that it is no where mentioned in the complaint that loans taken by the complainants exclusively for the purpose of earning of livelihood by means of self employment. 

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Laxmi Engineering Works V/s PSG Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428 in Para no. 24 held as under. 

    (i)the explanation added by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993 (replacing Ordinance 24 of 1993) with effect from 18.06.1993 is clarificatory in nature and applied to all pending proceedings.

   (ii)Whether the purpose for which a person has bought goods is a ‘commercial purpose’ within the meaning of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ in section 2 (d) of the ACT is always a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstance of each case.

   (iii)A person who buys goods and use them himself, exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment is within the definition of the expression ‘’consumer’’.

7.Looking to the above facts and circumstance we are of the considered opinion that complainants are not  consumers within the provision of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 hence present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in this forum. Hence complaint is dismissed accordingly. 

8. Both the parties will bear their own cost. 

9. Copy of the order made available to the parties free of cost as per law.

   File  be consigned to record room.

Announced on………