Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Both Appeal Nos. A/1130/2014 and A/1172/2014 arise out of the Order dated 10-09-2014 of the Ld. District Forum, Howrah passed in CC/78/2013.  Accordingly, both these Appeals are disposed of through this common order.

In short, case of the Complainant was that he purchased one vehicle from the OP No. 2 through the OP No. 1.  Soon after its purchase, the Complainant faced immense difficulty with the engine of the vehicle and despite repeated repairing of the same, including replacement of the engine once, as the problem of low pick up could not be fixed, he filed the complaint case.

On the other hand, the OP No. 1 submitted that the Chassis of the subject vehicle was sold to the Complainant on 31-10-2011.  Complainant, thereafter, handed over the said chassis to the bus body builder.  After 3½ months, the Complainant placed the said vehicle at the workshop of the OP No. 1 with complaint of noise in the engine.  Despite due repairing, as the Complainant still complained of same difficulty, this OP thoroughly overhauled the engine.  However, as the Complainant was not satisfied, the engine was sent to the factory of the OP No. 2.  Thereafter, a new BS IV engine was sent by the OP No. 2 which was handed over to the Complainant.  Thereafter also necessary assistance was rendered to the Complainant whenever he approached this OP. 

The OP No. 2 also claimed that it rendered all the necessary assistance to the Complainant.

Decision with reasons

Parties were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record gone through minutely.

Ld. Advocates for the OPs questioned the maintainability of the case itself on the ground that the Complainant is running transport business for commercial purpose.

On a reference to the copy of Registration Certificate being furnished on behalf of the OPs, we find that the Complainant is the owner of another vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-19E/2105. 

Further, it transpires from the reply given by the Complainant in respect of the questionnaire being put forth by the OP No. 2 that the Complainant has engaged different drivers on rotation. 

The above is a clear pointer of the fact that the Complainant is running transport business by engaging several drivers. 

It, thus, appear that the Complainant is not a consumer.  Accordingly, the complaint case was not maintainable before the  Ld. District Forum.  Somehow this vital aspect escaped the attention of the Ld. District Forum.  In any case, since the complaint case was not maintainable in the first place, we are not inclined to delve into the merit of the case.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.  Consequent thereof, both these Appeals stand allowed.  The Complainant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of his grievance. 

The original copy of this order be kept in the case file of A/1130/2014  and copy thereof in A/1172/2014.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. District Forum along with the LCR at once.