Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
Ld. Advocates for both sides are present.
The IA/347/2023 has been filed by the OP No. 1, 2 & 3 challenging the maintainability on the ground that the Complainant is not a Consumer.
In this context, the Ld. Advocate for the OP took me to the paragraph 1, 2 of the Complaint.
It appears from those paragraphs:
- That the complainant is a reputed company and has been doing his business, under the name and style M/s. Steelex India, situated at 31, Khelat Babu Lane, P.S. Tala, Kolkata – 700037, W.B. within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission.
- That for the personal use to manufacture different equipments the complainant has to buy scrap from different company both Private and Govt. company and Govt. undertaking company and use the same in his manufacturing work by purifying the scrap.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted that he is dealing with the aforesaid materials for personal use and not for commercial purpose.
According to the OP, on 01.02.2020 the Complainant lifted scrap A.A.C. through vehicle Nos. WB19J-1950 & WB25D-3590 by furnishing initial weight of those vehicles at Ramkrishna Weighbridge weighing 5120 Kgs. and 9730 Kgs. respectively and final weight at Ramkrishna Weighbridge after loading those scrap materials were 7270 Kgs. and 13660 Kgs.
So, the WBSEDCL, Katwa Division decided to recheck the matter regarding weight with the said trucks and after checking it was found that the Complainant, concerned by those two vehicles Nos. WB19J-1950 & WB25D-3590, illegally and stealthily lifted excess scrap materials 1490 Kgs. and 1670 Kgs. respectively and subsequently over the issue a criminal Complaint Case was filed before the ACJM of the Ld. Court concerned and the Complainant executed a Jimma Bond of Rs.10,00,000/- for getting the same.
Against the petition the Complainant filed Written Objection denying the material allegation of the maintainability petition.
He referred the decision reported in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.9004-9005/2018. Referring the same, he submitted that when the goods were purchased by a Consumer and used by him exclusively for the purpose for his livelihood by means of self-employment, it is not a commercial purpose.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank dt. 22.02.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016, wherein it was observed that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to help consumer to get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It provides for “business-to-consumer disputes” and not for “business to business” disputes. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Complaint that the Complainant personally used for business of manufacturing different equipments. The Complainant had to buy scrap from different Companies, both from private and Government Company and Government Undertakings and used the same in the manufacturing works by purifying the scrap.
Undoubtedly, M/s. Steelex India is a Company and it appears to us that it manufactures different equipments purchasing scrap from different companies including private company and Government Companies.
So, we are of the view that the Complainant is doing his business for commercial purpose. So, in view of the aforesaid decision, the instant Complaint Case is not maintainable.
Accordingly, IA/347/2023 is allowed.
The Complaint Case No. CC/145/2022 is dismissed and IA/347/2023 and IA/1038/2022 stands disposed of.
There shall be no Order as to the costs.
