HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

       The application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by one Rajendra Khandenwal being the representative and constituted attorney of Ramkrishna Khandenwal and another claiming certain reliefs in terms of their prayer in the petition of complaint and prayed for admission of such complaint for getting reliefs under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The prayer for admission of complaint case is accepted by Consumer Court if two conditions are fulfilled (1) that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and (2) the Forum or Commission admitting the case has jurisdiction, either territorial or pecuniary or both to try the same. The instant case has been filed claiming reliefs for recovery of Rs. 29,40,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh forty thousand) and compensation/damage to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) + litigation costs and others amounting Rs. 34,40,000/- (Rupees thirty four lakh forty thousand) which prima facie establish the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Since the OPs herein have their places of business within the territory of West Bengal, this Commission has also territorial jurisdiction to try the case but so far as the status of the complainants as ‘consumers’ is concerned, it is averred in the petition of complaint that the complainants kept 5200 bags of potatoes in the cold storage of the OP no. 1 by purchasing the said potatoes from the local market. The averments as contained in the petition of complaint clearly revealed that the complainants hired services on payment of consideration with the approval of the OPs herein for commercial purpose only for doing their business in a large scale by way of reselling those potatoes. The averments as stated therein do not show that such service, as averred by the complainants was exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment rather they hired any service of the cold storage for the commercial purpose not for personal consumption but for resale which clearly indicates commercial purpose of the complainants who cannot be termed as ‘consumer’ within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Act. Accordingly we are unable to designate the complainants as consumers within the meaning of section 2 (d) (ii) read with explanation to the section. Accordingly taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances, and the reliefs claimed by the complainants herein we decline to admit the complaint case, holding that their claim does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the prayer for admission of the complaint case stands rejected and disposed of.