The central legal point established is that a complainant purchasing a product for commercial purpose may not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the court may lack jurisdiction if civil proceedings on the same matter are already pending.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This action came up for admission before us today.

2. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Ganesh Babu, appearing for the complainant.

3. We perused the averments in the complaint and other connected documents filed alongwith it. From such perusal, we are able to perceive that the complainant Company registered under the Companies Act purchased a Maruthi Esteem car for the use by the office on hire purchase agreement from the opposite parties. The complainant, it appears, had been paying certain instalments of dues to the opposite parties and it so happened that the complainant Company committed one or two defaults in making remittance of instalments due on a particular date. The opposite parties pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement seized the car and ultimately sold the same to the third party.

4. The complainant Company it appears also instituted civil proceedings before the competent Civil Forum and the proceedings so instituted is still pending. It is in this backdrop and setting, the complainant Company knocked at the doors of this Commission praying for the reliefs as below :

“(i) to pay the sum of Rs. 3,21,138/- towards loss caused to the complainant by selling the vehicle at very low price as per their alleged sale dated 9.12.1999;

(ii) to pay the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- towards the cash left in the car while taking away the car by the opposite parties;

(iii) to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards the article fitting etc., in the car as per inventory report;

(iv) to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental worry, tension, agony and much inconvenience caused by the opposite parties to the complainant’s officers etc.;

(v) to pay the cost of this complaint to the complainant; and

(vi) pass such further or other orders and reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Forum in the circumstances of the case.”

5. We are of the view that this complaint as instituted deserves rejection in limine. The reasons are manifold. First of all, the complainant Company on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, cannot at all be construed to be a consumer falling within the definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act’”). The subject-matter of purchase is a Maruthi Esteem Car. The car had been admittedly purchased by the Company as disclosed by the averments in the complaint is for the purpose of the usage of the said car by the staff members of the Company. Therefore, in such an eventuality, it cannot be stated that the said car was not purchased for any commercial purpose. If the car had been purchased for commercial purpose, the complainant Company cannot at all be construed as a consumer falling within the definition as adumbrated under Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act.

6. This apart, in respect of the said matter of dispute, the complainant Company had admittedly instituted civil proceedings against the opposite parties before the competent Civil Forum. Axiomatic a proposition of law it is that if, in respect of the same subject-matter, proceedings before the Civil Forum had been instituted prior to the institution of the proceedings before the FORA constituted under the Act and such proceedings are pending, the FORA constituted under the Act definitely gets ousted of jurisdiction.

7. For the reasons as above, this complaint deserved rejection in limine.

8. In fine, the complaint is rejected in limine.

Complaint dismissed in limine.

–––