MR. SHYAMAL KUMAR GGHOSH, MEMBER
The instant CC case has been filed by the Complainant, Eastern Electrodes and Coke Pvt. Ltd. against the opposite parties (OPs) praying for certain reliefs as prayed for which are clearly enumerated in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant on the point of admission at length and in full.
We have considered the submission of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant.
We have meticulously perused all materials available on the record.
At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant/Pvt. Ltd. Company has argued that the schedule property mentioned in the petition of the complaint would be purchased for the residential purpose of the Directors of the aforesaid Pvt. Ltd. Company . But in this regard, no plea has been taken by the complainant. It is the settled principles of law that we cannot travel beyond the pleadings of the petition of complaint.
We have carefully perused the agreement for sale dated 21.01.2022 wherefrom it appears to us that the complainant/ Eastern Electrodes and Coke Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Directors namely Sandeep Jain and Surendra Bardia, herein after referred to as the purchaser and both the Directors have endorsed their respective signatures upon the said documents for and on behalf of the aforesaid Pvt. Ltd Company. It does not mean that the 2nd Schedule property would be purchased for the residential purpose of the Directors of the Company.
There are plethora of judgements and decisions of Hon’ble Higher Court/Commission that the Pvt. Ltd. Company does not come well within the purview of the definition of the ‘Consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act as the commercial motive is involved in the aforesaid Pvt. Ltd. Company in order to gain profit.
At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate has filed some citations in support of his case. Having heard the Ld. Advocate and upon careful perusal of the said citations, it appears to us that the Directors of the Company come well within the purview of the definition of the ‘Consumers’ as per C.P. Act, when the Ld. Advocate is able to prove his case by filing necessary documents and papers to substantiate the claim.
But in the instant Consumer Case we do not find any cogent and reliable documents wherefrom we come to the conclusion that the schedule property has been booked for the use towards residential purpose of the Directors of the Company.
Considering all aspects from all angles and keeping in mind the present position of law , we are constrained to dismiss the present consumer case against the OPs without any order as to costs at the admission stage.
The CC case stands disposed of accordingly.
Note in the register.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the party free of cost.
