APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  1^ST FEBRUARY 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.06.2016, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/1067/2015, “Sri Archa Kumar Banerjee versus Kingfisher India Elevator Air Condition Industries”, vide which, miscellaneous application no. MA/103/2016 filed by the present petitioners during proceedings in appeal before that Commission, was ordered to be dismissed.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners Archa Kumar Banerjee and others filed consumer complaint No. 564/2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas against the opposite party (OP)/respondent M/s. Kingfisher India Elevator Air Condition Industries, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part in the installation/commissioning of a hydraulic lift in their building.  During proceedings in the consumer complaint before the District Forum, the OP filed miscellaneous application No. 108/2015, challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainants were not consumers.  The District Forum vide their order dated 27.08.2015 dismissed the said application as well as the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainants were not consumers under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, as the services had been availed for a commercial purpose.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainants filed an appeal before the State Commission.  During the pendency of the said appeal, miscellaneous application MA/103/2016 was filed by the petitioners/appellants/complainants before the State Commission, stating that local inspection at the site should be ordered to be conducted before taking a decision in the matter.  However, the said miscellaneous application was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 09.06.2016 stating as follows:-

“This MA is having no connection with this appeal.  The complaint case has been dismissed only on the ground that the Complainants are not consumers and other matters have not been dealt with by the Ld. District Forum.  Accordingly, this meritless MA is rejected.  Fix 22.03.2017 for hearing of the appeal as a last chance.”

3.       Being aggrieved against the above order of the State Commission, the complainants are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

4.       During arguments before us, the petitioner No. 1 who was present in person, stated that the application for getting the local inspection conducted had been wrongly dismissed by the State Commission.  It would be in the interest of justice that such local inspection be made before taking a decision in the consumer complaint. 

5.       The learned counsel for the respondent submitted, however, that the said consumer complaint had been dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the complainant did not come in the category of consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence, the order passed by the District Forum was in accordance with law.  Since the consumer complaint was held to be non-maintainable, no purpose shall be served by carrying out a local inspection on the spot.

6.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

7.         A plain perusal of the order dated 27.08.2015, passed by the District Forum reveals that a miscellaneous application No. 108/2015 filed before them by the OP challenging the maintainability of the consumer complaint, was allowed.  It was held that the complainants do not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’, as the service had been availed for a commercial purpose.  The consumer complaint was, therefore, ordered to be dismissed, being not maintainable.  The said order was challenged by the complainants by way of an appeal before the State Commission, where they filed MA/103/2016, requesting for spot inspection on the issue.  We are in complete agreement with the arguments led by the learned counsel for the respondent/OP that once a consumer complaint has been found to be not maintainable on ground of jurisdiction of the consumer fora, no useful purpose shall be served by conducting spot inspection in the matter.  The order passed by the State Commission dismissing MA/103/2016 is, therefore, in order and the same is upheld.  This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed.  The State Commission is directed to decide the appeal pending before them, regarding the maintainability of the consumer complaint in accordance with law.  There shall be no order as to costs.