Order No. 16. Dated – 09.12.2021
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of MA No. 393 of 2021 filed by the OP. The matter was last heard on 30.11.2021 where the Ld. Advocates for both sides were present. No WO has been filed by the Complainant. Ld. Advocates for the OP put his submission referring the Complaint Petition and citing the different Orders of the Hon’ble NCDRC.
The instant MA has been perused. The OP has challenged the maintainability of the original Consumer Complaint stating that the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning as defined under Section 2(7) of the C.P. Act, 2019. As per submission the Complainant is carrying on dying of cloth business from the workshop which is the subject matter of dispute. The subject matter of dispute is a commercial property. The nature of business being carried out by the complainant requires involvement of skilled worker, employees and staffs and under no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the complainant is otherwise working for gain by means of self employment and for earning his livelihood. On the contrary the complainant has repeatedly stated that the workshop was used for commercial purpose, the tenancy was granted for commercial purpose and went on saying that he has sustained huge loss in his business day to day.
Now on perusing the complaint petition Vide Para (A) Line No.5 it is observed that the complainant has stated that “ The petitioner is a recorded old tenant of the premises No. 13, Ripon Lane, Kolkata – 700016 . and the tenancy was for business purpose. “
Again in Para B of the complaint petition it is stated “ Your complainant states that your complainant is suffering day to day huge loss as the tenancy was for business purpose and till date the OP willfully and deliberately denied to give possession back to the complainant, the complainant suffered pecuniary loss in his business as the OP neither provided the shifting nor paid the shifting charges which resulted in closing of the business and pecuniary losses to the petitioner.”
In Para (C) of the Complaint Petition the petitioner states “ the petitioner has not been returned back his tenants portion where the complainant used to use the said tenants space as workshop for his business of dying cloths, ……………….”
In Para (D) Point No. 4. The statement of the petitioner is “ That the aforesaid tenancy is for business purpose and the petitioner used to utilize the possession of the tenanted portion as workshop of dying clothes. “
In para (D) Point No. 6. Line No.8 “The complainant is the tenant in respect of the tenanted portion measuring an area of 600 sq.ft. at ground floor and the same is in use of the complainant for his commercial purpose. “
On thorough perusal of the Complaint Petition it is observed that in four corners of the said petition there is no whisper that the said business is absolutely for maintaining his own livelihood by means of self employment. More over the Ld. Advocate of the OP has cited the related case laws of Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of
CALPRO FOODS PVT. LTD. VS GUJRAT INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN.
BHANUMATI S CHANDAN AND ANOTHER VS SUDEV VENTURES…….
NAVIN KUMAR VS M/S. OMAXE LTD.
SHWETA SHARMA VS BPTP LTD.
GOWHAR RIYAZ KHAN VS ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD……
From the above orders it transpires that even mere mentioning of commercial activities for the purpose of earning own livelihood by means of self employment is not sufficient enough to prove the Complainant as a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the above observation we are of the considered view that the OP has justified his prayer by proving that the Complainant is not a Consumer under the purview of C P Act 2019.
Hence the MA No 393/2021 is disposed off and the Complaint Case is accordingly dismissed.
