18-11-14 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the ordersheet.

  1.       Heard the parties.

2.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Lower Forum wrongly held that the appellant is not a Consumer. 

3.       On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the Respondent submitted that admittedly the Complainant/Appellant is a transport company having several vehicles known as Tipper Heavy Vehicles, used for commercial purpose and therefore the learned lower Forum has rightly held that the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  He further pointed out that the complainant filed these three Complainant Case for three separate vehicles, which were disposed off by a common order, against which these appeals have been filed. 

  4.       The learned Lower Forum interalia held as follows:-

“6.     The Complainant is a company known as BKB Transport Company, which is engaged in transport of minerals through their heavy vehicles.  The Company is engaged in commercial activities to earn profit.  This fact is admitted that the Complainant is doing business of transport in mining areas and is engaged in commercial activities.

7.       In the case reported in 2009 Vol – II CPJ 402,  Hon’ble National Commission has held that where a company is engaged in commercial activity, it can not be held that it is a consumer within the meaning of sec. 2 (i) (d) (ii) Proviso of the C.P. Act.  Similar is the view of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case reported in 2008 Vol – II CPJ 210.  In that case, it was held that where trees were purchased in huge scale for commercial profit, it was held that complainant was not consumer.

8.       In this case also, the Complainant is a Company which is engaged in transport business having several heavy vehicles and is engaged in commercial activities.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that Complainant is not a consumer under sec. 2 (i) (d) (ii) Proviso of the C.P. Act. 

9.       Accordingly, we hold that these complaint cases are not maintainable in law.  Accordingly, this issued is decided.” 

5.       We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.  However the complainant may avail other remedy if available to it under the law.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,    

Dated: 18.11.2014