Order No. 6                                                                              Date : 19.07.2019.

This order is arisen out of an application filed by the O.P., herein after called the petitioner, challenging the maintainability of the CC-383/2018 on the grounds stated in the petition, which has been registered as MA-36/2019.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner, (being the O.P. of the main case), submitted before this Forum that the consumer complaint is not maintainable as the complainant being a partnership firm purchased machine for commercial purpose, which is out of the purview of the Act. He further stated that commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint.

On the other hand, the complainant (being the O.P. of this present application) filed W/O, against the said MA application and Ld. Advocate submitted that the consumer complaint is well maintainable in this Forum as the complainants are running the business, which is a small unit, for earning their livelihood by means of self employment, and which comes under the explanation clause given u/s 2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The complainants are thus consumers within the meaning of the section.

Heard both sides.

We have gone through the petition, W/O and other connected documents. The only plea the petitioner / (O.P. of the main case) has taken that the complainants have purchased the machine for commercial purpose. But the petitioner failed to establish that the complainants are doing their business not for their earning livelihood by means of self employment. The complainants, have claimed that they are doing business, admittedly by forming a partnership firm, but they categorically stated that they are doing such business only because of earning their livelihood by means of self employment.

In our view, to decide whether the complainants doing their business for earning their livelihood by means of self employment or the complainant simply doing their business activity, needs to be weigh through proper and cogent evidence.

The case is in the initial stage. No cogent evidence is available on the record. Mere allegation is not sufficient. The present petitioner (O.P. of the main case) has to prove that the complainants are doing their business, which is commercial in nature and they are doing so not for their earning livelihood by means of self employment. That piece of evidence is lacking at this stage.

Consequently, the petition of the petitioner, being MA-36/2019 is devoid of any merit and thus it is liable to be rejected.

Hence,

          it is,

                   O R D E R E D

that the MA-36/2019 is rejected on contest.

To 02.09.2019 for evidence  by the complainants.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Lady Member