Order-3.

Date-28/05/2018.

The complainant files Affidavit with license documents but without any pay roll. In the affirmed Affidavit, the complainant claimed that the shop is the only bread earner for him and as good as 8 nos. of casual workers are engaged.

The complainant claims self employment undertaken by him as consumer.

It be pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court demarcated the line by way of detailed observation in Laxmi Engineering Matter etc, where it has been settled that the self-employment has to be carried out by the consumer with the assistance of one or two assistants/workers, otherwise, such consumption shall be for commercial purpose and for profit generating. In the instant case, as per complaint’s admission, there are at least 9 (nine) employees including the complainant. So, the complainant falls within the exclusion clause of Sec 2 (I) (d) (i) or (ii) and will not get the benefit of ‘Explanation’ to the said section. So, the complainant is not a consumer as enumerated in the section ibid.

Moreover, the main allegation of the complainant is barbed against Ops-1,2 and 3, which are in Maharastra and beyond our jurisdiction for which, complainant files petition U/S II (2) (b) of the C.P Act. Op-4 is a govt. organization and is no how related with the deficiency of Ops-1 to 3. So, no permission is given u/s II (2) (b) and therefore, the complaint suffers from defects in Territorial jurisdiction U/S II (2).

So, in both counts, the complaint cannot b admitted and so is rejected.

The complainant is directed to lodge his case, if desired, at the appropriate/competent court of jurisdiction.

The petition u/s II (2) (b) is hereby disposed of.