DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC/405/2014 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
M/s V H FASHION PVT LTD
Khasra No. 400
MG Road, Ghitorni
New Delhi-110030 ..........Complainant
Versus
- M/s Nitco Logistics Pvt LTd
882, 3rd Floor, East Park Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
- Mr. Girish Sharma (Manager)
M/s Nitco Logistics Pvt LTd
882, 3rd Floor, East Park Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, President
The present complaint is bound to be dismissed on the threshold without going into its merit. The complaint has been filed in the name of M/s V H Fashion Pvt Ltd The complainant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act. The complainant had availed of the services of the OP for commercial purposes. The complainant, therefore, does not qualify as a ‘consumer’ within the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A similar view was taken in the case of National Dairy Research Institute (Deemed University) v. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc. & Ors, II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“The requisite machine was purchased for commercial purposes only. Purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come within the term “services” availed by the petitioner, i.e. Institute, exclusively, for the purpose of earing its livelihood, by means of self-employment.”
In the case of Same Fine O Chem Limited v. Union Bank of India, III (2013) 490 NC, the Hon’ble National Commission held as under :-
“Para 6……………The complainant is a limited company and not an individual, therefore, it cannot be said that the services of OP were availed by the complainant for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment. Thus, in our view, the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ given under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On our aforesaid view, we find support from the order dated 22.08.2003 of four Members Bench of this Commission in O.P. No.174/2003 titled M/s Leatheroid Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank.”
Consequently, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to parties free of cost as per law.
File be consigned to R/R.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on_____________
( S N SHUKLA ) ( RAKESH KAPOOR )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
