Order No.  2  dt.  01/03/2017

          Heard the Ld lawyer for the complainant and perused the material on record.

          Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that four complainants who are the partners of M/s Luqmanjee Auto Centre entered into an agreement with o.ps for purchasing a shop room. At the time of admission hearing  ld. Lawyer for the  complainants submitted that the complainants are running the business for livelihood. It is the bounden duty of the complainants to prove the same  by producing cogent evidence. However, complainants have failed to do so. Complainants are earning their livelihood from the shoproom and the shop room was booked not for earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore complainants are not  ‘consumer’ within the meaning and scope  of Section 2(1)(d) and the complaint, is not maintainable on this ground.

          Complainants did not furnish any partners deed and the balance sheet wherefrom it can be revealed that the complainants are running their business for livelihood purpose. The shop room was booked entirely for commercial purpose.

          Apart from this complainants did not take the permission u/s 12(1)(c)  of C.P.Act, 1986 since there are more than one consumer.

          In view of above the present case is rejected in limini.