ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor , President

The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold
without going into its merits.  The complaint has been filed in the
name of M/s Northen Holdings Pvt Ltd.  The complainant is a company
incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act.  It had
booked an office space with the OP vide agreement dated 17.9.1996. The
complainant company had purchased goods or obtained the services of
the OPs for commercial purposes.  The complainant, therefore, does not
qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research
Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. &Ors, II
(2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as
under :-

“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only.
Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term
“services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for
the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”

         In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of
India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as
under :-

“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an
individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were
availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of
self-employment.  Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall
within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On our aforesaid view, we find support
from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this
Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt.
Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”

In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S Fertilizers (P)
Ltd &Anr I appeal no. 723/2006 again  a similar view was taken by the
National Commission.  This was followed in the case of BELMAKS
SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no
07 of 2013.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same
is hereby dismissed.

         Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record roo