Order-11.
Date-28/02/2017.
Parties are present.
The petition for maintainability dated 09.02.2017 is taken up for hearing along with its object.
Heard the Ld. Lawyers for both sides. Considered.
In filing the petition, it is stated that the instant case is not maintainable under CP Act as the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the CP Act.
It is stated, service of the Insurance Company filed by the Complainant was for safeguarding the commercial purpose and there is no scope of self-employment of a Company as a Private Limited Company and the case is not maintainable as such.
In filing W.O, the Complainant has stated that the Complainant has instituted the case on the ground of deficiency of service by the OPs. It is denied that the case is not maintainable under CP Act.
It is stated that the Complainant is a Director, doing business for livelihood and as such, he has no other alternative source of income. The Complainant has prayed for rejection of the petition.
According to Section 2 (1) (m) of the CP Act, ‘Person’ includes:
- A firm whether registered or not;
- A Hindu Undivided Family;
- A Co-operative Society;
- Every other association of persons whether registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.
The definition of consumer is envisaged u/s 2 (1) (d) of CP Act and on plain reading of the aforesaid definition, it would be seen that the definition itself curves out an inbuilt explanation to the effect that if the services of the OP are hired or availed for commercial purpose then the hirer of the service would not fall within the definition of the Consumer.
A plain reading of the aforesaid definitions of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Person’ makes no bone of contention of the fact that apart from an individual human being, only the aforementioned four categories have been brought under the fold of the 1986 Act, others not.
It appears from the cause title of complaint case that the Complainants appears to be a Private Limited Company. Private Ltd. Co. are being run by Board of Directors of the Company and it is given as such that such a Company and its Board of Directors enjoy distinct entity, separate from each other, more so, as the same does not fall amongst the aforementioned categories or Organizations.
We are afraid, the Complainant cannot be treated as a ’ Consumer ‘.
We think that the complaint, as such, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the case merits no success
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs being not maintainable in CP Act, 1986 as amended.
