Order No. 2                                                                                   Date 08/07/2019

            The instant case is fixed for admission hearing and accordingly the case is taken up for hearing.

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant has purchased a machine on 29.08.2016 at a consideration of Rs. 4,20,000/- for his business purpose but subsequently the said machine did not yield satisfactory production and as a result of which the complainant had to suffer inconveyances and incurred loss of Rs. 75,000/-.

            The complainant alleged deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence on behalf of the O.Ps. and therefore instituted the case for redressal.

            Heard the complainant.

            Perused the complaint petition and other connected documents.

            It appears from the case record that the complainant, being a commercial enterprise, purchased a plastic machine, as stated in the complaint petition, from the O.Ps. on 29.08.2016 at a consideration of Rs. 4,20,000/- for the purpose of using/installing the same in his business premises, which the complainant noticed that the said machine did not yield satisfactory production since installation.

            The cause of action arises on 29.08.2016. But the complainant did not file the case within the time period of limitation as prescribed u/s – 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986. No condonation of delay prayer is presented. Therefore, the case is time barred as provided in the Act.

            Further, it appears from the case record that the complainant purchased the aforesaid machine for the purpose of using / installing the same in his business premises for earn or making profit. The complainant is a business house. No plea is taken by the complainant in the complaint petition that the complainant is doing the business for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and he purchased the same exclusively for the said purpose.

            Therefore, we have no hesitation but to hold the view that the complainant, being a business house, purchased the machine for commercial purpose.

            It is well settled principle of law that the commercial users cannot maintain consumer complaint.

            Therefore, in our view, the complainant is not a consumer, as defined u/s – 2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and the case is not maintainable before this Forum.

            Hence,

            it is ordered that the consumer complaint, being CC-187/2019 is dismissed as not maintainable, without being admitted.

            Let a free copy be given to the parties concerned as per CPR-2005.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Lady Member