Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

In this Appeal, the legality of the Order dated 27-09-2018 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) passed in CC/189/2018 is called in question by the Appellant.

It appears that the instant complaint case was dismissed on maintainability ground.  According to the Ld. District Forum, the Appellant was not a consumer and further that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said case.

In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submitted that although the Appellant owns two vehicles, that could not be reason enough to strip him off the status of ‘consumer’. 

We regret to state that it was a complete misnomer on the part of the Appellant to assume that ownership of two mini buses could not stand in the way of becoming a ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act.

The Act notwithstanding empower Consumer Fora to adjudicate commercial disputes, it comes with a rider, i.e., one has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he embarked on such venture for the purpose of maintenance of livelihood by means of self-employment.

Being the owner of two mini buses, it was virtually impossible for the Appellant to run both of them all by himself.  It required no elaboration, therefore, that he had to hire the services of at least one driver to run the same.  That being the translucent scenario of the case, evidently, the Ld. District Forum quite aptly sealed the fate of maintainability issue being raised by the Respondent. If for no other reason, then on this solitary ground the complaint case deserved summary dismissal.

We are fully at one with the findings of the Ld. District Forum that the Appellant could not be considered as a ‘consumer’ under any circumstances. 

Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any reconsideration. We, accordingly, dismiss this Appeal.  We, however, impose no costs upon the Appellant taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.