Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :
Heard both sides. This is a consumer complaint in which notice before admission has been issued. On behalf of Opponent Nos. 1 and 3, respective advocates are appeared. So far Opponent Nos. 2 & 4 concerned, they are the employees of Opponent No.s 1 and 3 at a point of time. However, as stated at Bar, since then they have left their service. However, Opponent No.s 2 and 4 are served and their postal acknowledgement are on record. Therefore, we proceed to hear the complaint for admission.
The Complainant is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act and the complaint has been filed through Dr. Ramchandra, Sr. Vice President of the said company. The business of the said company is to provide a labour force and give service to the concerned person who requires it. In short, various concerns desires to give job to the persons in their business provision or office, they submit requisition and their demand with the complainant, the complainant circulates those demand in the public at large and recommend their names to the concerned concern. The concerned concern takes interview and records them. The business of the present complainant is to only suggest names of suitable persons to the concerned employers so as to recruit them in the services. No doubt, the actual recruitment is carried out only by the concerned employer. This part of the service which is rendered by the complainant is very important for reconsideration because in order to provide this service to the concerned employers.
Opponents were supposed to supply MPLS/VPN (Multi Protocol Level Switching/Virtual Private Network) system to the complainant and the grievance of the complainant is that the said system is not proper and defective one and there is deficiency in service. It is true, the facts remains that this communication system is to be utilized by the complainant to collect date of human resources from throughout the country and/or various centers of the complainant. Therefore, the system rendered by the opponents was to be utilized and was for the purpose of finding human resources by the complainant who ultimately will supply human resources to the concerned employees. The total telecommunication facility which is rendered by the opponent to the complainant was to be utilized in and as a part of business and it is for commercial purpose. For such purpose, service provider is not covered and the complainant cannot be said as a consumer. Only exception is if such commercial transaction is for self-employment and for livelihood since it is private limited company registered under the Companies Act, there is no question of self-employment or livelihood and therefore, ultimately, taking into consideration the definition of the consumer given in section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of said Act, 1986 and therefore, we refrained ourselves to entertain the complaint. Hence complaint is hereby rejected.
Pronounced dated 21st September 2011.
