The Ld, Counsel for the Complainant is present.

          Today is fixed for admission hearing of this complaint.

          We have heard on the point of its admissibility.

          This Complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the CP Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops did not take any step to return a sum of Rs. 4,35,256/- along with interest and necessary documents till filing of this Complaint.

          The fact of the case of the Complainant is that she is a bona fide consumer of the Ops. The Op No. 1 is the main official set up where from necessary business transaction/delivery of consumables/goods had been arranged/initiated towards the present complainant is business terms and the Op No. 2 is the Branch Office which has been set up within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Since 2007 the Complainant used to carry on good business relationship with the Op No. 1 and for this reason both Ops are the service providers towards the Complainant. Due to supply of poor quality of materials/ gadgets/parts/machines and for continuous dis-satisfaction from the end of the customers along with constant inaction, non cooperation attitude of the Ops on several occasions this complainant had to decide to close business relationship with the Ops by all means. According to the Complainant such attitude of the Ops denotes deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complainant made written correspondences with the Ops on several occasions and approached before the Ops for immediate cancellation of dealership from the good office of the Ops. Simultaneously she also prayed for refund of the security deposit along with vehicle and spare parts credit notes etc to this complainant, but the OPs did not take any step in this regard and being aggrieved with such inaction of the Ops the complainant had filed this complaint.

          The Complainant has mentioned in the petition of complaint that a sum of Rs. 4,35.256/- is still due from the Op No. 1, which the Complainant is very much entitled to get the same. The Complainant had also make correspondences through speed post in this respect on 14.02.2020 and 19.02.2020, to no effect. As the Ops did not take any step to refund the due amount till date to her, hence according to the Complainant the limitation of this Complaint is still continuing. As the Ops did not take any step to resolve the grievance of the Complainant hence having no other alternative she had approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops to hand over the abovementioned amount along with documents, Rs. 7,50,000/- towards compensation due to harassment, mental agony and pain, litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/- to her and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

          During argument on being asked the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has stated that she had to run business in the interest of her livelihood.

          We have carefully perused the petition of Complainants and the documents filed by the Complainant and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant. At the very outset we have gone through the dealer agreement executed by and between the Complainant and the Op No. 1 on 3.05.2012. Within the four corners of the said dealers agreements nowhere it is stated by the Complainant that the Complainant running dealership with the OP No. 1 for earning her livelihood, not for commercial purpose. The petition of Complaint is clearly revealed that the relationship by and between the Complainant and the Op No. 1 is purely in commercial nature. In the paragraph 13 of the petition of Complaint, the Complainant has written that she is running such business relationship with the OP NO. 1 for her livelihood, but the said sentence is written  after notary and the said sentence has not been notarized by the notary public. During hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant could not placed any document from where it cannot be ascertain that the relationship by and between the complainant and the Op No. 1 was for earning livelihood rather it is revealed that the relationship was commercial in nature.

          In view of the Section 2(d)(ii) of the CP Act, 1986 …………………………… does not include a person who avails of services for any commercial purpose under the purview of the definition of Consumer.

          In view of the above we are of the opinion that as the Complainant had hired the services from the Op No. 1 for commercial purpose hence the Complaint can not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          Besides above the dealer agreement shows that the agreement was executed by and between the Complainant and the Op No. 1. The Op No. 2 was not made a party therein. Therefore, it is crystal clear that to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum the Complainant has made the Op No. 2 as a party in this proceeding. The address of the Op No. 1 is as 72, Palodia, via thaltez, Ahmadabad-382115, Gujrat. The address of the Op No. 1 denotes that the grievance if any against the Op No. 1 does not lie before this Ld. Forum on the ground that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. No communication on behalf of the Complainant in respect of her business was made with the Op No. 2. In view of the landmark Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra) wherein Their Lordships have held the Branch Office means a Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen. Having regard to the abovementioned Judgment it can safely be said that no cause of action had arisen with the Op No. 2 , which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.

          In view of the above this Complaint is also hopelessly barred by its territorial jurisdiction.

      Hence it is ordered that the Complaint being no. CC 166/2020 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as barred by its territorial jurisdiction without being admitted. There is no order as to cost.

          The Complainant is at liberty to approach before the Appropriate Court to resole her grievance, if not barred otherwise.

Dictated and corrected by

             President

[Sri. Lakshmi Kanta Das]