21/05/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT   

            These are the two Appeals bearing no.FA 570 of 2013 and FA 761 of 2013 arising out of the same judgment passed by Learned District Forum, Burdwan in case no.CC 103 of 2011 allowing the complaint and making some directions to the OP.  FA 761 of 2013 has been preferred by OP No.1 and FA 570 of 2013 by OP No.2.

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he is a businessman and doing business at Asansol.  In connection with the business he purchased one Mobile Crane. The sale certificate was issued by OP No.2 in the name of the Complainant.  The Complainant made payment of instalments to the financing Bank.  But the Complainant could not put the Crane in operation on road due to non-availability of the permanent registration though the Crane was made available to him on 18/04/11.  The Complainant had to engage one operator/driver for the Crane with remuneration of Rs.8,000/- p.m. and he has to bear this expenditure although the Crane is inoperative.  For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.

            It is submitted by the Appellants that the Complainant purchased the Mobile Crane for commercial purpose and there is no mention in the pleading that the Complainant runs the business for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  It is contended that the permanent registration certificate was allotted after the filing of the complaint case. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank has submitted that the Complainant took loan from the Bank for purchasing Mobile Crane and the loan has been repaid in full. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent has submitted that the order was passed wrongly by the Learned District Forum against OP No.1 and it should have been passed against OP No.2 of the complaint.  It is contended that the registration certificate has been issued after the filing of the complaint case.

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  On perusal of the petition of complaint, we find that the Complainant is, admittedly, a businessman carrying on business at Asansol and in connection with the business he purchased the Mobile Crane.  There is no mention in the petition of complaint that the Complainant has been running the business for earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  In absence of such pleading it is evident that the Complainant purchased the Mobile Crane for commercial purpose and, therefore, he cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the C. P. Act, 1986.  The Learned District Forum was not justified in allowing the complaint.  The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. 

            Both the Appeals being no.FA 570 of 2013 and FA 761 of 2013 are allowed.  We set aside the impugned judgment and order.  The petition of complaint is dismissed.  This judgment will govern both the Appeals.