Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 17-03-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in CC/98/2014, whereof the complaint has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant purchased 5 trucks with the financial assistance rendered by the OP No. 2.  Thereafter, Complainant decided to purchase 10 more trucks with the financial assistance of the OP No. 2 and accordingly placed necessary order with the OP No. 1, who initially delivered 6 trucks in three phases.  After noticing mechanical problem with one of the newly delivered trucks, the same was immediately returned.  When other newly supplied trucks were pressed into action, they developed various problems.  As the Complainant came to know that the OP No. 1 did not supply the intended model, he cancelled the order for rest of the 4 trucks. Since the OPs neither cured the problem nor took the defective trucks back, finding no other alternative, the complaint was lodged.

The OPs primarily disputed maintainability of the case.  They also denied any deficiency in service on their part.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and perused the material on record.

The instant complaint was dismissed  on the ground that the Appellant was not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It is contended by the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant that transport business is the only source of income of the Appellant and he ventured into such business for his self-employment and livelihood and that, he possess valid licence to ply truck  and accordingly, the Ld. Advocate contended that the Appellant is a consumer as defined under the Act. 

We afraid, the clarification, as given by the Appellant, is totally misplaced.  It seems that the Appellant totally misconstrued the term ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act.

One can be considered a ‘consumer’ under the Act if one embarks on such business or ply the trucks all by self. On the other hand, the moment one engages driver to ply the same, one is stripped of the status of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

It is hardly believable that despite having a fleet of 10 trucks at his disposal, the Appellant did not engage any driver to run the same and kept 9 trucks idle at any given point of time. If he himself intended to earn his livelihood by running truck, there was no need for him to purchase so many trucks for this purpose; a single truck would suffice.

We find no infirmity with the decision of the Ld. District Forum.  So, any sort of intervention with the same is totally uncalled for.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.