Order No. 7          date: 21-07-2015

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the maintainability petition moved by the OP No. 2.

By such petition, it is contended by the OP No. 2 that the Complainant is admittedly a Private Limited Company and the instant dispute relates to commercial purpose of the said company.  As such, it is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Complainant filed WO against the said petition of the OP No. 2 stating inter alia that the instant dispute relates to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Moreover, such service was requisitioned exclusively for personal purpose and not for commercial purpose.  Therefore, the complaint case is very much maintainable in its present form.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has contended that it is the undisputed fact of this case that the Complainant is a Private Limited Company and it is rendering various services related to travel and tourism to its customers against service charges.  The said order was placed upon the OP No. 1 to promote the commercial interest of the Complainant company.  So, the Complainant cannot be construed as a “Consumer”, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such, the instant case cannot be adjudicated in its present form and prayer. In support of his contention, the Ld. Advocate has referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (1) CPR 488 (NC) and 2013 (3) CPR 430 (NC).

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that an order was placed upon the  OPs for its personal purpose and not for any commercial purpose.  Therefore, the Complainant is a bona fide “Consumer” within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.  As such, there is no merit in the instant petition, which be rejected in limine.

We have gone through the order dated 15-09-2014 placed by the Complainant upon the OP No. 1, wherefrom it transpires that the latter was assigned to make a presentation for showing the same before prospective investors, partners, associates and relevant government agencies.  Significantly, the order was placed by the Complainant Company and the same was signed by two persons, including Mr. Gurmukh Jethwani, who has declared himself as a Director of the Complainant Company. Nowhere in the said assignment, there is any mention of the fact that it was meant for personal consumption.  On the contrary, the purpose of presentation, as mentioned in the said order, makes no bones to the fact that the said order was placed to promote the Complainant Company before its intended audience.  That being so, we find no qualms holding that  the work order was issued purely for commercial purpose contrary to the claim of the Complainant in this regard.

Against this backdrop and taking into consideration the fact that commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint, there is enough merit in the instant petition moved by the OP No. 2.  Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.

Consequent thereof, the complaint case stands dismissed being not maintainable.