Today is fixed for passing order on the point of maintainability filed by the OP no.1 .

            It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one Marine Greaves
Engine HP 260 from the OP on 18.05.2017 as per challan No. APM 17/17-18 dated 18.05.2017 at a cost of Rs. 12,40,000/-. After few days the engine did not function properly. The complainant intimated the fact to the OP no  1 verbally. The OP no. 1 attended the complainant  on 13.07.2017, 18.07.2017, 11.08.2017, 23.08.20-17, 02.09.2017 and lastly on 18.01.2018 . In every occasion they repaired the machine but still it did not function properly. Lastly on 23.03.2018  the complainant wrote to the OP no1 about the various problems of the engine such as some time electric line problem, water leakage problem etc. On 23.03.18 the complainant wrote to the OP no. and demanded replacement of the engine or to refund the price  of Rs. 12,40,000/-.  As the Op no1 did not take any steps, hence, the complainant has filed this case.

            In reply to this the OP no.1filed this petition on the point of maintainability. In the petition the OP no.1pointed out that the engine was used by the complainant as a  fishing vessel which is  for commercial purpose. Operation of this fishing trawler is not possible and can not be moved unless 10 to 15 persons are engaged. It means that it  is used fully for commercial purpose and complainant did not mention anywhere that he used the said trawler for his own livelihood  or for any domestic purpose. OP no.1 further mentioned in the petition that one person cannot operate the whole machinery works nor he can move alone for netting fishes from deep sea which means that the complainant is a commercial user   who can not maintain a consumer application. The machine was not purchased for own livelihood but it was purchased for commercial purpose. By filing affidavit  the complainant has admitted that his occupation is a ‘business man.’’ Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d)(ii) of the C P Act 1986.

The  ld. advocate for the OP no.1 has referred some decisions reported in CPR 2018(3) 288 (NC), 2018(3)CPR 222(NC) in support of his contention.

I have vividly scrutinized the subject matter of the decisions referred by complainant and I find that the decisions are not fully agree with the dispute in this case and hence I am of the view that the complaint is not maintainable U/Sec 2(d)(ii) of the C P Act 1986.

As such, the complaint is dismissed on the point of maintainability without any order of costs.