Today present complaint is fixed for consideration on the point of its admissibility.
2. Heard. Case file perused. Present complaint has been preferred by complainant with regard recovery of loaned amount which allegedly given by complainant to the OP through Promissory Notes/Cheques etc. It is well settled that the Consumer Protection Act has been designed to protect the interest of persons with regard to deficiency in services hired or in any goods bought by paying consideration but in the present case, there is no such dispute rather it is a dispute of amount allegedly given on loan by complainant to the OP. Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, says as under:-
Section 2 (7) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation—For the purposes of this clause,—
(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing.
3. In view of the proposition of law explained above, we are of the considered view that the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ under due provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
4. However, to convince the Commission, complainant has produced a case law titled as Astha Developers & Colonizers and others Vs. Damodar Sinha, Shiv Pujan Prasad decided by Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi in R.P. No.1131 & 1132 of 2016 decided on 17.05.2016 [(IV) 2016 CPJ 61 (NC)] wherein the matter relates to recovery of money which were paid by complainants vide cheques with regard to handing over of a constructed house to complainants within stipulated period of 18 months but OPs failed to start the construction even upto 30 months and returned the payment so received from complainants by way of cheques which were dishonoured when presented in the banks and thus complaints were filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, seeking directions to Ops to refund a sum of Rs.5.00 lac in each case alongwith interest & compensation but in this case, complainant seeks recovery of the amount which is purely of a civil nature and is admittedly not maintainable under due provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. So, the facts of the case law produced by complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.
5. In view of the facts explained above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed in limine. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
