Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/464

HANUMAN WARE HOUSE. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK - Opp.Party(s)

18 May 2016

ORDER

HANUMAN WARE HOUSE                   …   PETITIONER.

Versus

MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS   .… RESPONDENTS

                       

                       18.05.16

Shri Qasim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

As per Shri Subhash Jain:

 

                    This revision has been filed by the complainant / petitioner against the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Case No.117/13 by the District Consumer Forum, Damoh.

2.                We have gone through the order of the District Forum, Damoh and heard the arguments of the learned counsel.  The District Forum, in paragraph no.11, 12 and 13 of its order, has very elaborately and descriptively explained the conditions under which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.  As per the findings of the District Forum, the complainant / petitioner does not fall under the definition of “consumer” under the provision of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

3.                We have gone through Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,  and find that no new facts have been mentioned in the petition apart from what has been mentioned in the order passed by the District Forum.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the petitioner was running the warehouse solely for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  It cannot be presumed that the purpose of business of the Hanuman Warehouse is clearly not for the livelihood and self-employment but just for earning profit or loss.

5.                In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the District Forum, Damoh is up to the mark and needs no interference.   The revision petition is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage having no merits at all.