Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Miscellaneous Application No. MA/364/2015 in Complaint Case No. CC/414 of 2014. Case: Marooti Filling Station Vs Galaxy Outdoor Advertising Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberMiscellaneous Application No. MA/364/2015 in Complaint Case No. CC/414 of 2014
Party NameMarooti Filling Station Vs Galaxy Outdoor Advertising Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
CounselFor Appellant: G. Sinha, Advocate
JudgesDebasis Bhattacharya, Presiding Member and Jagannath Bag, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d)
CitationIII (2015) CPJ 27 (WB)
Judgement DateJune 22, 2015
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Debasis Bhattacharya, Presiding Member

  1. Today is fixed for passing order in respect of the MA filed by the OP No. 4 agitating maintainability of the instant complaint case.

    By such petition, it is stated by the OP No. 4 that the instant complaint is not maintainable for the simple fact that the Complainant is not a 'consumer' as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this case, the Complainant is a Private Limited Company and the commercial activities carried out by it cannot be for its earning livelihood by means of 'self-employment'. A company has to act through somebody and the question of livelihood and self-employment under these circumstances would not and cannot arise.

    Learned Advocate for the OP No. 4 has submitted that the Complainant is a Private Limited Company and the commercial activities carried out by it cannot be for its earning livelihood by means of self-employment. A company has to act through somebody and thus, the question of livelihood and self-employment, under these circumstances, would not and cannot arise. The Complainant in its complaint has admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant company for the personal use of its directors. Such admission ratifies the fact that the vehicle was never purchased for personal use of only one Director, but it was used by all the Directors and thus the question of personal use is negated. As such, the Complainant cannot be construed as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and accordingly, the instant case be dismissed being not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate has referred to three decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission, viz., one decision reported in I (2015) CPJ 422 (NC), and the others in R.P. No. 3517/2007 and in Appeal No. 723/2006 and also a decision of this Commission in CC/192/2014.

  2. Learned Advocate for the Complainant has stated that it clarified its position in the petition of complaint that the vehicle was purchased for the personal use of the directors of the Complainant Company. The vehicle has not been purchased for the purpose of resale or for any other commercial purpose. So, there is no infirmity in preferring this complaint case before this Commission which is competent enough to adjudicate such dispute. As such, the petition of the OP No. 4 be rejected. He has referred to two decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission in R.P. No. 3338/2014, and OP...

To continue reading

Request your trial