Date of filing: 17.7.2017                                                                 Date of disposal: 19.7.2017

Complainant:               Sekh Sahajahan, S/o. Late Sk. Alam Bari, Kashiara Somespur, PO: Memari, Dist: Burdwan, PIN- 713 146.

-V E R S U S-

Opposite Party:    1.     Manager, Reliance Nippon LIC Ltd., Burdwan Branch, Birhata, G. T. Road, Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.

2.      Manager, Reliance Security Ltd., Salt Lake, Sector – V, Block “E” Pand GP, Resmi Building, Kolkata – 700 091.

Present:      Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.

           Hon’ble Member:  Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.

Appeared for the Complainant:      Ld. Advocate, Chandrani Bhattacharya.

Order No. 02, Dated: 19.7.2017

Ld. Counsel for the complainant is present. The complainant is also present in person. Today is fixed for admission hearing. We have carefully perused the petition of complaint wherein it is stated that the complainant had issued two Demand Drafts to the tune of Rs. 37,722=00 and Rs. 27,600=00 in favour of the OP-1. The said two Drafts were accepted by the Authorized Signatory of the OP-1. The two Demand Drafts were deposited by the complainant as security money for the purpose of making an insurance policy in his name believing the false/vague story represented by the authorized agents of the Ops to set up a Reliance Tower on the roof of the complainant at Memari. According to the complainant the aforesaid amounts were misused by the Ops as no insurance policy had been issued by the Ops in his favour. The complainant informed the entire matter to the OP-1 and request was also made to refund the amount. Not only that, the amounts was taken from the complainant by making false representation of setting up Reliance Tower. He informed the entire matter to the OP-2 through written representation, but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact with the OP-2 for getting refund of the amount. But the said letter was returned with the endorsement as ‘insufficient address”. As the grievance of the complainant have not been redressed by the Ops, hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for direction upon the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.27, 600=00 + Rs. 37,722=00 as paid by him, compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000=00 due to unnecessary harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs. 7,500=00 to him.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant has advanced argument on the point of admissibility of the complaint. It is seen by us that admittedly the two Drafts were issued by the complainant in favour of the OP-1 on the context of setting up a Reliance Tower on the roof of the house of the complainant at Memari. Such averment indicates that the Ops tried to occupy the roof of the complainant on rental basis for which the relationship by and between the complainant and the Ops is as land owner and tenant, not as a consumer and service provider. Moreover, indulging the Ops for setting up a Reliance Tower on the roof of his house, the complainant tried to get some income from the Ops, which in our opinion is certainly for commercial purpose. In view of the definition of ‘consumer’ as enumerated in the C. P. Act, 1986 under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) any person who avails of any service with a view to commercial purpose, he cannot be termed as a consumer within the purview of the definition of the ‘consumer’. Therefore, in our view in the instant complaint, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer as per the definition of ‘consumer’ as enumerated in the C. P. Act, 1986.

This complaint is filed by the complainant with a view to get back refund of the two Demand Drafts as paid by him to the Ops. In this connection we are to say that as the complainant is not a consumer, his grievance cannot be redressed through this Ld. Forum. Obviously, if he paid the said amount to the Ops, he is entitled to get back refund the same from the Ops, but not through this Ld. Forum. He is at liberty to claim the said amount through Money Suit and for this purpose he may approach before the competent Civil Court for getting redressal of his grievance.

Going by the foregoing discussion, hence it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 129/2017 is hereby dismissed without any cost being not admitted.

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  (Silpi Majumder)

                         Member

                DCDRF, Burdwan

                                                      (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)                        (Silpi Majumder)

                                                                 Member                                          Member   

                                                          DCDRF, Burdwan                          DCDRF, Burdwan