This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP. Due to such alleged deficiency in service the complainant has prayed for refund of the due amount of Rs.1,75,401/- along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- without any delay payable  by the OP to the complainant.

            At the time of admission hearing it is detected by us that the complainant used to carry on business in manufacturing Z Purlin and Roofing sheets in several places of West Bengal and supplying the same by order of the intending purchaser smoothly. It is also mentioned in the cause title of the complainant that the complainant is a Private Limited Company.

            In view of the Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 wherein it is enumerated that

“Consumer means any person who hires or avails any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid, or promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails  of such services for any commercial purpose ;

Explanation-

            For the purposes of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her and services availed by him/her exclusively for the purposes of earning his/her livelihood by means of self-employment.”

Having regard to the abovementioned Section we are of the view that as the complainant falls within the explanation clause of the abovementioned sub-Section of the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the complainant does not come under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’. It is pertinent to mention that within the four corners of the complaint nowhere it is mentioned by the complainant that service was availed of by  the complainant from the OP for earning his livelihood or by means of self-employment, whatever it may be. Therefore the instant complaint does not stand at all.

            Moreover in the cause title of the complaint the complainant has expressed that it is a Private Limited Company. In this respect we can rely on some Rulings i.e.-

1. RP-3517/2007, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/s. Computer Services (P) Limited vs. M/s. Allena Auto Industries Private Limited, dated 14.03.2012.
2. FA/662/2013, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited & Another vs. M/s. Future Value Retail Limited, dated 28.11.2014.
3. CC/56/2011, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of Family Credit Limited vs. State Bank of India, dated 11.03.2014.

Upon careful perusal of the abovementioned Rulings it is seen by us that the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C. has been pleased to observe that the Private Limited Company is not a consumer under the definition of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the company does the commercial activities of its share holders, question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment would not arise. In the judgments passed by the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. it has been held that a Private Limited Company cannot maintain a consumer complaint and therefore the complainant cannot be said as a consumer.

      The abovementioned Rulings in our view are applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, having regard to the abovementioned Rulings we are of the view that the present complainant cannot be termed as a consumer and for this reason the complaint initiated by the Private Limited Company is not maintainable as a consumer complaint before this Ld. Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

      Going by the forthcoming discussion hence, it is ordered that the consumer complaint being No. CC/107/19 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable and without being admitted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to cost.

      However the complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if not barred otherwise.

      Let a plain copy of the order be given to the complainant free of cost as per CPR, 2005.

                                                                      President

                                                  Dictated & Corrected by