Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/106/2013

BEST PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UT LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/106/2013
 
1. BEST PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
R-489, NEW RAJENDER NAGAR, N D
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UT LIMITED
8 A.S.C., BORE ROAD , KOLKATA 700017
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR SHARMA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

 

 

    The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold without going into its merits.  The complaint has been filed in the name of Best Properties Pvt. Ltd

   The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. It had  entered into a contract agreement dated 25.7.2011 with OP1 for design , manufacturing, supply, installation and commissioning.  The complainant company had thus obtained the services of the OP for commercial purposes.

  The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only.  Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”  

         In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-

“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”

In the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd V/s G S Fertilizers (P) Ltd & Anr I appeal no. 723/2006 again  a similar view was taken by the National Commission.  This was followed in the case of BELMAKS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD V/S SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT LTD AND ANR Ist appeal no 07 of 2013.

Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.   

         A copy of this order be made available to both the parties free of cost as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_________

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR SHARMA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.