Recent amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, excluded a person who avails of services for any commercial purpose from the definition of a consumer, influencing the court's decision on the maintainability of the complaint as a consumer dispute.

Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—This matter is placed on our today’s Board in the caption of directions. O.P. has filed his written statement and objection has been raised that the dispute herein filed as consumer dispute will not be maintainable to the jurisdiction of this Commission in view of recent amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in particular Section 2(1)(d), Sub-clause (ii) thereof.

O.P. in his written statement has highlighted this aspect in paragraph 1.

2. We have perused the pleadings in the complainant and in the very first paragraph complainants have averred that the complainant-Company in carrying on business of manufacturing and selling “glass, vials and bottles”. Further in the very paragraph, complainants have averred “according to the complainants, the services so engaged and/or availed by the complainants-Company are not for commercial purpose but for improving the efficiency of its staff members, etc.”. Thereby complainants had sought to explain rather ingeniously that the services hired by the complainants are not for commercial purposes.

3. Needless to add that the sole object of the complainants to improve the efficiency of its staff members is in terms of skill and efficiency to facilitate it to carry on its commercial venture.

4. The complaint has been filed on 26th June, 2003, and recent amendments to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to herein above were brought into force with effect from 15th March, 2003.

5. Sub-clause(ii) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 which defines consumer was amended by adding “but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

6. In view of what is stated herein above, the status of the complainant is that of commercial entity and that it has availed of the services from the O.P. as noticed herein above for furthering and advancing its business profits, etc. We, therefore, hold that the complaint as filed, as consumer dispute is not maintainable to the jurisdiction of this Commission.

7. We notice that the pleadings in this dispute have been completed by filing written statement by the O.P. and rejoinder by the complainants.

ORDER

1. It is held that the complaint as filed, as consumer dispute is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission.

2. Consequently, we proceed to reject the complaint.

3. However, there shall not be any order as to costs.

4. It is however, in fairness and in interest of justice, it is clarified that the rejection of the complaint as above shall not operate as an impediment to the complainants to pursue its remedy before appropriate Forum and for that purpose we are providing 6 weeks’ time from today to the complainants to approach the appropriate Forum.

5. We clarified that complainants will be entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of Limitation Act for the period complaint remained pending before this Commission.

6. Copies to be furnished to the parties.

Complaint dismissed.

–