The Complainant filed this case on dtd. 01.12.2022, U/s. 35 of C.P.A- 19, alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps. The case is posted today for admission hearing.
The Advocate for Complainant is present and files hazira. Heard. On perusal of the complaint petition, it is observed that the present matter is a dispute between the instant Petitioner Abhaya Narayan Mohapatra (vs.) The Director, Earn India Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi & the Branch Owner, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi.
Upon the confrontation with the Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant regarding the clauses of the complaint petition, the Advocate argued vehemently and claims himself to be under the umbrella of the proviso- (a) of Sec- 2 (7) (ii) of C.P.A- 19 (Self- employment).
That, upon perusal of the complaint petition, it is understood that the Complainant is a bonafide & appointed as a “Commissioning Distribution Agent” of the O.Ps. Further, it has been admitted by the Complainant that, the Complainant is a seasoned Businessman, who had another business prior to business with this O.Ps. More Further, in the complaint petition, the Complainant raised the issue regarding his getting commission from the O.Ps. Hence, the Complainant in his own complaint has admitted himself to be a Complete Businessman, not a Consumer as defined in C.P.A- 19.
That, this Commission would like to make it clear that, nowhere in the complaint petition, the Complainant has claimed purchase of any goods and/ or, has received any services from the Principal, which suffers any defect/ deficiency during his operation by the Complainant, for earning of his livelihood on the basis of self- employment.
Hence, the petition filed by Complainant is hereby rejected for the reason that this case is not maintainable before this District Commission as it does not come under the ambit & purview of the C.P.A-19.
Issue extracts copy of the order to the Complainant for his reference & doing needful at his end.
