Order No.  7  date: 05-12-2014

Sri Debasis Bhattacharya

Record is put up for passing order in respect of the maintainability petition of the OP.

It has been contended by the OPs that the Complainant does not come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint is not maintainable on the ground of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction.  It is also otherwise bad in the eyes of law.

While the Ld. Advocate for the OPs relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in RP No. 3755/2014 and CC No. 135/2011, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant relied on a decision of this Commission in CC No. 22/2010.

Though the main thrust of the OPs has been on the point of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, it is also seen in the light of its validity in the eye of the law concerned i.e. the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in a decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) that, “Respondent is a private limited company and the commercial activities carried out by it cannot be for its earning livelihood by means of self-employment.  Company has to act through somebody and the question of livelihood and self-employment under these circumstances would not arise.  Company has judicious identity and it can be sued through a person.  Company does the commercial activities for its shareholders.  Question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment would not arise.”

In this case also the Complainant is a private limited company.  So, the complaint filed by it does not fit into the bill to come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is not maintainable, since it is not a ‘consumer’ as strictly defined in the Act.  As such, the other matters involved regarding territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is not further dealt with.  Complaint, thus, stands dismissed.