C o n s u m e r  C o m p l a i n t  No. 18/2023.

      Order Date:  23 .02.2023

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Complainant files hazira through Ld. Advocate. The case is taken up for admission hearing and order.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant. Perused the complaint and the  Xerox copies of the documents so  filed by the complainant.

It appears that M/S Apptek Engineering, a Proprietorship Firm, representing by its Proprietor Aparna Chowdhury  has lodged this case against the OP Nos. 1 & 2  i.e Proprietor T.A. Engineering Works, Powder Coating Plant Manufacturers and Services   and  Mr. Badal Mondal, Manager of T.A. Engineering Works, Powder Coating Plant Manufacturers and Services. 

It is the case of the complainant that M/S Apptek Engineering  is a Proprietorship Firm which has been dealing with the business of manufacturing  Electronic Weighing Scale devices and the said Firm has been running by the Proprietor M/S Aparna Chowdhury by way of self-employment to earn her source of livelihood  and she has purchased Manual oven, Powder Gun Machine, AIR Compressor and Powder Record Booth from the OP No.1  by making  payment of total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- but Rs. 7,72,900/- has been reflected in the Invoice but transport charge of Rs. 27,100/- has not been reflected in the said Invoice and the OPs supplied the Powder Gun Machine  , Manual oven . But it was not installed by the mechanic expert of the OPs and the OPs did not supply AIR Compressor etc. for which the entire set up has not been completed.

From the very nature of the Cause Title of the complaint and the case, it appears that both the parties have been dealing with business and the motto of business is to earn profit. According to the nature of manufacturing business, it is not possible for the Proprietor solely to run the manufacturing business by saying self-employment to earn her livelihood. Manufacture and sale of products after manufacturing in a commercial way may also to earn livelihood. Mere earning livelihood in commercial business does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. Therefore, according to the case of the complainant, it can be said that the business is running and the purchasing of the manufacturing products from the OPs is for a commercial purpose and according to Section 2(7)(i)(a)  of the C. P. Act , the complainant is not a “Consumer”.

The complainant may take recourse to other procedure before other authority for ventilation of her grievance and not before the Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection Act.

This case does not come under the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that this case is not admitted and thus disposed off.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant on free of cost.

                               Member                                              Member                                                   President

D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman          D.C.D.R.C. Purba Bardhaman.       D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman