Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Revision is preferred against the Order dated 01-06-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/103/2016, whereof the maintainability petition of the Revisionist has been rejected.

In short, case of the Revisionist is that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant runs its business as well as the ambulance, i.e., the subject vehicle through its representatives/Directors only to earn profit from the same and for commercial use only and therefore, it cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the said maintainability petition being rejected by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such decision, this Revision is filed.

At the time of hearing, parties were represented by their respective Ld. Advocates, who were heard at length.  We have also gone through the documents on record.

It appears from the cause title itself that the Respondent No. 1 is a Private Limited Company, implying that the same is run by its Directors. Therefore, element of self-employment is sorely missing here. Further, generating profit being the primary motive of such venture, which is very much evident from the copies of accounts related papers pertaining to the company, there can be no two opinions as to the commercial nature of such business affair. 

In view of this, by no stretch of imagination the Respondent No. 1 can be reasonably considered as a bona fide ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act.   Regardless of the fact that the nature of service provided by the Respondent No. 1 has an element of social service, insofar as the Respondent No. 1 does so in lieu of considerable fee/service charge, I do feel that it perfectly fits into the category of commercial enterprise. In fact, on going through the copy of Articles of Association of the Respondent No. 1 company, I do not come across any such fact that the same is categorized as a charitable institution; rather, it appears that the same has been established under the Companies Act. 

For all these reasons, I cannot uphold the impugned order.  There being enough merit in this Revision petition, I am constrained to allow it.  Consequent thereof, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable.  However, Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of its grievance, if it wishes to.  In that case, Respondent No. 1 may seek computation of the period that has been lost in pursuing the complaint case and this Revision in terms of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act.