ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Mhase, President
Complainant as well as advocate for the Complainant is absent.
[2] This is a complaint filed by M/s. Selvel Publicity & Consultants Ltd., on 15/3/2003. At that time, the Complainant filed this complaint through Adv. Raja B. Thakare, Adv. A. M. Chimalker and Adv. S. V. Shirsat. It appears that in this complaint a prayer has been made to direct the Opponents to pay to the Complainant an amount of `13,50,000/-, as computed in paragraph (19) of the complaint, towards the loss suffered by the Complainant and which is likely to be suffered by the Complainant by a far greater amount as a result of gross deficiency on the part of the Opponents. It appears that after the complaint was filed, it was not listed for hearing on admission and it was lying undated. Subsequently, complaint was placed before the Bench No.2 of this Commission on 13/7/2011 on which date the Bench No.2 directed to issue notices returnable on 5/9/2011 to both the parties by RPAD. On 5/9/2011 both parties were absent. As the office did not comply with the earlier order dated 13/7/2011, the Bench No.2 directed the office to intimate next date of hearing to both the parties and the complaint was adjourned to 14/11/2011. Accordingly, notices were issued to both the parties on 31/10/2011. Again on 14/11/2011 both the parties to the complaint remained absent. Again the Bench No.2 directed to intimate next date of hearing to both the parties and the complaint was adjourned to 25/1/2012. Accordingly, notices were issued to both the parties on 13/1/2012. On the next date viz. 25/1/2012, Mr. Sujit Thakur, Accountant working with the Complainant Company was present while nobody appeared on behalf of the Opponents. The complaint was admitted on that date and it was directed to issue notices returnable on 19/3/2012 to the Opponents through State Commission by RPAD at the cost of the Complainant. However, the endorsement made by the office reveals that as the Complainant did not come with required papers for service, notices could not be issued to the Opponents. On 19/3/2012 the Opponents were absent. However, Adv. Kush Dhawan appeared on behalf of the Complainant and undertook to file his ‘Vakalatnama’ on the record upon obtaining ‘No objection’ from the previous advocate on the record. Since the earlier notices issued to the Opponents were returned unserved with postal endorsement – ‘Left Address’, Complainant was directed to take necessary steps to issue fresh notices to the Opponents by supplying correct addresses of the Opponents and the complaint was adjourned to 13/6/2012. Accordingly, fresh notices were issued to the Opponents on 9/5/2012. On 13/6/2012 Adv. Kush Dhawan appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Order-sheet dated 13/6/2012 states that Adv. Kush Dhawan filed his ‘Vakalatnama’. However, ‘Vakalatnama’ of Adv. Kush Dhawan is not on the record. Notices issued to the Opponents on 9/5/2012 were returned unserved with postal endorsement ‘Left premises’. The Complainant was directed to take steps to trace out the new address of the Opponents and the complaint was adjourned to 23/8/2012. On 23/8/2012 due to heavy workload the Board was discharged and the complaint was adjourned to 21/11/2012. On 21/11/2012 Adv. Mani Thevar appeared on behalf of the Complainant and filed an application seeking time to furnished fresh addresses of the Opponents. Therefore, time was granted by way of a last chance and the complaint was adjourned to 31/1/2013. However, today nobody appeared on behalf of the Complainant and no steps are taken by the Complainant for service of notices to the Opponents by furnishing correct present postal addresses of the Opponents.
[3] Under these circumstances, we have considered the complaint. What we find that the complaint has been filed by a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Complainant Company has been in the business of publicity and hoarding advertisements and the Company is having branch offices all over India and presently there are 13 offices existing. In order to coordinate all these offices, the Complainant Company wanted to have an automatic system for the process of smooth operations, high efficiency and better coordination in different departments. Therefore, the Complainant Company had given a contract to the Opponents to install such services and computerized system. However, since the same was not fitted properly and there was a demand of more money from the Opponents than agreed, a consumer dispute has been filed. What we find that it is a ‘commercial transaction’. The Complainant Company availed the services of the Opponents for its commercial purposes and to have coordination with its various business branches and, therefore, the Complainant Company is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the complaint itself is not tenable.
[4] Apart from that above-referred history from the date of filing of the complaint till the date shows that in what callous manner present complaint is being prosecuted by the Complainant Company and its advocate and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint equally for non-prosecution.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The complaint stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 31st January, 2013
