20.06.2017

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          Instant Revision petition has been filed by the Revisionists/OPs praying for setting aside/ stay of operation of the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum North 24-Paraganas, Barasat in Complaint Case No. CC/483/2015, first by passing an order of injunction dated 17/08/2015 restraining the OPs from any coercive measure against the petitioner and thereafter, passing a further order on 01/09/2015 for attaching the property of the OPs till further order of the Ld. District Forum.

          The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent/Complainant is a Registered lease holder of parcel space in different trains from Chitpur (Kolkata Terminal), P S Bidhan Nagar under Sealdah Division of Eastern Railway for a pretty long period.

          The Respondent/Complainant, as alleged, won over the aforesaid lease through tender in respect of several compartments of several trains leaving Kolkata Terminal at an agreed price, service and Development charges. The lease, as appeared from the complaint, was valid for three years from the date on which the Respondent/Complainant paid the security deposits in respect of each train.

          The Respondent/Complainant, however, could not operate the loading of goods smoothly from the very first day due to arbitrary claim of huge amount of ‘Haptas’ by the RPF personnel. That apart, as alleged, the trains were used to be placed late by more than 10 hours everyday and at least twice a week the trains were used to be cancelled without prior intimation. There being no remedy found forthcoming in spite of the notices of the higher authorities being drawn to the aforesaid impediments standing in the way of operation of loading, the Respondent/complainant, as alleged, had to incur serious loss of business which compelled her to suspend loading of some trains.

          In the backdrops as above, the OPs, allegedly, out of ill motive, communicated to her under their letter dated 04/08/2015, their contemplation of cancelling the Registration, terminating the lease and taking, as well, the penal action against the Respondent/Complainant debarring him from participating in the tender till the issues raised by the Respondent/Complainant are resolved.

          Out of apprehension that her Registration might be cancelled and the lease terminated as communicated by the OPs and also in apprehension that she might be debarred from participating in the new tender, the Respondent/ Complainant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned orders relate to.

          Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revisionists/OPs who submitted that the Respondent/Complainant is a lease holder and her non performance and wild allegations against the Revisionists/OPs warranted the penal actions, as conveyed by the Revisionists/OPs through letter dated 04/08/2015, to be taken against her.

          Furthermore, as the Ld. Advocate continued, the Ld. District Forum did not have the authority to adjudicate on the issue as the Respondent/Complainant was not a consumer within the provision of section 2(1) (d) of the C P Act, 1986 since she was a lease holder and, admittedly, she used to carry out her business.

          The Ld. Advocate went on to submit that the Complaint Case, in the above backdrop of events, lacked the maintainability and, therefore, the Revision Petition may be allowed setting aside the orders impugned.

          There was none to represent the Respondent/Complainant.

          Perused the papers on record.  It appeared from the complaint at para-4 of the running page-2 of the complaint that the Respondent/Complainant who was the sole proprietor of his organization “ Palak Enterprises” won over the tender in respect of leasing out of several compartments in several trains from Kolkata Terminal in course of her business. This means the issue was related solely to a commercial purpose. The complaint did not reveal any averment to the effect that the said commercial purpose had any implication ever with her earning of livelihood through self employment.

          In the light of the above, we are inclined to hold that the instant Revision Petition did not only target the impugned orders, rather it had very rightly challenged the maintainability of the complaint itself since the complainant was not, prima facie, eligible to be considered as a consumer in the light of the perspective narrated hereinabove.

          We, in the above circumstances, hold that the issue has no merit to be heard under the provision of the C P Act, 1986.

          Hence, ordered that the Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned orders and consequently, the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable.