In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 226 / 2009 1) Hindustan Udyog Limited, 41, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (Control) Ltd., 5/2, Russel Street, Kolkata-71. 2) Universal Sales, P-41, Princep Street, Kolkata72. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member Smt. Dipa Sen (Maity), Member. Order No. 10 Dated 2 3 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 0 . Complainant filed an Amendment Petition on 23.07.09 and in the instant Amendment Petition prayed for amending the Cause Title of the Petition. It has also been prayed for that air-conditioning machines have been installed at the residential house of a Director of the Petitioner strictly for personal use and enjoyment of the said Director and the members of his family, and such air-conditioning machines were not so installed for making any gains and/or derive any profits therefrom. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P-2 has strongly resisted the proposed Amendment Petition by filing a Written Objection on 27.10.2009 contending, inter-alia, that the proposed Amendment Petition filed by the Complainant is not at all maintainable in its present form and should be dismissed in-limini, and the proposed Amndment is motivated, mis-conceived and unlawfuland the air-condition machines were purchased at Rs. 10, 07,192.00 for the commercial purpose and for business gain. And all the air-condition machines were installed at the residence of one Director of the Complainant for his personal use, is not at all accepted by any stretch of imagination, and according to the O.P. No. 2 when those air-condition machines are exclusively used for commercial purpose of the Complainant, and in that event, if it is allowed it will completely go against the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act because Consumer Protection Act does not give any relief to a person purchasing anything for the commercial purpose or resale. Initially, when the P:etition of Complaint was filed on 18.06.2009 it was not mentioned in the Petition of Complaint that it was used for such 40 numbers of the air-condition machines were purchased for the personal use of the Director of the Company. Common prudence demands that huge number of air-condition machines, viz., here 40 simply shows that it was purchased not for the personal use but for the commercial purposes of the Company. Moreover, after filing of WV when this point was agitated by the O.P. this plea of personal use of the Director was taken up by the Complainant by way of filing the Amendment Petition, and it appears to us this Amendment Petition is not only an after-thought but it is a device and attempt to hoodwink the Forum and the O.P. Moreover, at the initial stage of filing the Petition of Complaint the resolution of the Board of Director for purchasing such huge number of air-condition machines, viz., here 40 was not submitted by the Complainant. Definitely, and more reasonably it appears to us that those air-condition machines were purchased not for the personal use of the Director at his residence but for commercial use. So the proposed Amendment Petition is not only an after-though but it hits the basic principle of the Consumer Protection Act, and if allowed, it will definitely change the nature and character of the case; so the Amendment Petition stands rejected. Ld. Lawyer of the Opposite Party by filing a Petition on 24.11.2009 has challenged the maintainability of the present case contending, inter-alia, that the Complainant is engaged in business and according to the Petition of Complaint the Complainant is a Limited Company who purchased those air-condition machines for the Limited Company only. We have also perused the Objection Petition to the Application of O.P. No. 1 challenging the Maintainability of the case and noted its contents. We have already said that at the time of dealing with the Amendment Petition that we have observed that those huge number of air-condition machines viz. 40 were purchased by the Complainant for commercial purposes, and this being the position and on the basis our observation, we hold that the present case is not Maintainable, and accordingly, it stands dismissed. ____Sd-______ ______Sd-______ _______Sd-_____ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
