Order No:  4                                                                                       Date:21/11/2024

This case record is taken up for consideration in the matter of passing order in respect of this M.A. case which has been filed by the applicant side (O.p. of C.C. case No.90/2024) on the ground that the above noted complaint case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

This matter has been contested by the O.p. by filing W/O.

The argument highlighted by the Ld. Advocates of both sides have been heard in full. Considered submission.

Perused the M.A. application. Examine the W/O filed in this case.

It is the main point of contention and argument of the applicant side that this complaint case has been filed over Commercial Room and the same is not within the jurisdiction of this District Commission and the dispute involved in the above noted C.C. case is a Civil dispute and as such the above noted complaint case is not maintainable and so it is liable to be dismissed.

On the other hand, the O.p. who is the complainant of the above noted complaint case pointed out that the shop room is used by the complainant for the purpose of earning his livelihood and so the complainant is a consumer and the above noted complaint case is maintainable. In this regard, Ld. Advocate of the complainant side who is the O.p. of M.A. case referred the case law “2023 Livelaw aw (S.C.) 754: 2023 INSC 807”.

For the purpose of deciding the fate of this M.A. case, there is urgent necessity of making scrutinize of the materials of this M.A. case as well as there is also necessity of scanning the materials of the above noted complaint case. After going through the materials of the case record, it is reflected that the dispute involved in the above noted complaint case is related with shop room. The complainant side in support of their point of contention that the complainant is intending to run the shop room for the purpose of livelihood has not filed any cogent documents such as Income Tax Return, Sale Tax Return or GST return and Municipal Tax return etc.

In view of such position, it cannot be said the complainant is intending to run the said shop room for the purpose of livelihood.

In this regard it is the settled principle of law that Commercial Dispute cannot be decided in a summary trial proceeding under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and so complaint petition is not maintainable. This observation has been pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Annapurna B. Uppin & Others…………Applicant Vs Malsiddapp & Anr……….respondent which is reported in 2024(3) Indian Civil Cases 291(S.C.) and so it is crystal clear that the complainant case No.90/2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law.

Considering all the above noted factors, this District Commission is of the view that this M.A. case is required to be allowed on contest.

In the result,

it is accordingly

ordered

that the M.A. case No.59/2024 which has been arisen from C.C. case No.90/2024 is allowed on contest.

It is held that the C.C. case No.90/2024 is not maintainable in the eye of law and so the C.C. case No.90/2024 is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to cost.

Let this case record of M.A. case be tagged with the case record of C.C. case No.90/2024.

Dictated & corrected by me.

President