Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

            Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 28/08/2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum dismissing the complaint in limini on the ground that the case filed by the complainant does not attract the provision laid down u/s 2 (1) (d) of the C P Act, 1986 and accordingly, as observed, the same is not maintainable.

            The brief facts of the case, as emerged out of the complaint, were that the Appellant/Complainant, a Travelling Agency, with a view to purchasing one new model car, 2017 namely “DUTSON NEW MODEL CAR”, booked the said car advancing an amount of Rs. 25,000/-to the Respondent/OP No.1. He exchanged further an old car bearing number WB-02-AA1084 of an agreed value of Rs. 98,125/-with the said Respondent/OP No.1, paid a further amount of Rs. 1779/-in cash and an amount of Rs. 3,96,997/-, taking loan from the Respondent/OP No.2 to the Respondent/OP No. 1 to ensure full payment of the value of the new car to the tune of Rs. 5,21,901/-.

            The Appellant/Complainant, however, did not get the said car for which the price was paid. He, on his second visit to the office of the Respondent/OP No. 1, was shown a car of an old model of defective A. C. The car too was not functioning properly. The Appellant/Complainant refused to take the car and ultimately filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum praying for refund of his own money amounting to Rs. 1,24,904/-to him and Rs. 3,96,997/-to the Respondent/OP No. 2 by the Respondent/OP No. 1 along with litigation cost and compensation.

            We have heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

            Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/ Complainant, in his effort to establish the claim of his client in the complaint had justification, described, in brief, the entire matter in the same lines as it was narrated in the complaint. He laid stress more to establish that the purchase of the vehicle was not related to any commercial purpose. As continued, the Ld. District Forum passed an arbitrary order misinterpreting the transaction to be for commercial purpose. The Complaint Case, as he continued, should be disposed of on hearing the same on merit. The Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP No. 1, per contra, submitted that the Ld. District Forum had rightly assessed the merit of the case before dismissing the complaint. As contended, the Appellant/Complainant was a Travel Agency and the affidavit was signed on behalf of the said Agency by its partner. Referring further to running pages 27, 30 and 31, the Ld. Advocate continued that the communications, all addressed to the Respondent/OP No. 1, were signed by the partner on behalf of the Rishov travels, the Appellant/Complainant. The vehicle was, therefore, decided to be purchased by the Travel Agency itself for its own purpose  which obviously was a commercial one and not for any individual else for earning livelihood by way of self employment. In fact, as submitted, there was no averment to that effect in the complaint also.

            The Ld. Advocate went on to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works—Vs—PSG industrial Institute, reported in 1995AIR 1428, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission towards refusal to regard a complaint related to commercial activity to be an issue fit to be accommodated under the purview of the C P Act, 1986.

            The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.

            We have perused the papers on record and considered submissions of the Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides. The Appellant/Complainant being a Travel Agency and the complaint, being signed by the partner of the said Agency, it does not need to elaborate in so many words that the purchase of the vehicle was related to commercial activities of the Appellant/Complainant Travel Agency itself.

            We did not find existence of any individual in the instant complaint and therefore, the question of utilizing the business benefit for livelihood of any individual by way of self employment does not arise on the instant occasion. The complaint was also appeared to be devoid of any averment to that effect.

            Such being the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for intervention from this end. Accordingly, we decide that the impugned judgment and order should remain un-interfered with.

            Hence, ordered that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.