IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial activity does not come within ambit of consumer dispute.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.03.2008, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 615/2007, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, allowing the consumer complaint number 135/2005, filed by the present respondent Simar Kaur was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that as stated by the complainant, she wanted to run the business of running a sewing school in the name of M/s. Ram Simar Institute of Fashion Technology, Janta Colony, Bhogpur, in affiliation with the present petitioners and Usha Sewing School network. The complainant deposited a bank draft No. 011018 1442960001 dated 16.04.2003 of amount Rs.51,032/- in favour of the petitioner/OP, which was encashed by the petitioners. The complainant has stated that she constructed four rooms on a plot of 1 kanal 10 marlas area and arranged for furniture, fixtures, etc. for setting up the said school, but affiliation was not granted by the petitioner, due to which she suffered huge loss amounting to Rs.10 lakh. The complainant sought a direction to the petitioner/OP to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on his part due to non-affiliation/approval of sewing school/institution. The District Forum vide their order dated 14.03.2007, allowed the said consumer complaint and directed the petitioners to return the amount of Rs.51,032/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment. The District Forum also allowed a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for unfair trade practice and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. An appeal preferred against this order was decided by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 07.03.2008. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum, stating that the amount of Rs.51,032/- had admittedly passed on from Simar Kaur to the petitioner.

3. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as stated in their written reply in the consumer complaint, the said draft was given by the complainant to Mr. Prem Sabharwal of M/s. P.S. Enterprises, Guru Nanak Nagar, Jalandhar. Mr. Prem Sabharwal handed over the same draft to the petitioner against his own outstanding dues with the petitioners. The petitioners had nothing to do with the complainant and even otherwise, the complainant was not a consumer, as she had given the money for commercial activity. They also stated that the complainant never gave any application to them for setting up any school etc. Learned counsel stated that the said Prem Sabharwal of M/s. P.S. Enterprises had not been made a party in this case. The State Commission have observed in their order that it was for the petitioners to verify as to whether the bank draft had been got prepared by Mr. Prem Sabharwal of M/s. P.S. Enterprises or by Simar Kaur respondent. Learned counsel argued that once draft was handed over to them by Prem Sabharwal, it was nowhere their duty to find out, as to by whom the said draft was made. Learned counsel further invited our attention to the letters written by the complainant to the petitioners and complaint lodged by them to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.), Police Station Bhogpur, in which the complainant has clearly stated that the said draft of Rs.51,032/- was handed over by them to Mr. A. Sabharwal, Manager (Sales), P.S. Enterprises, Guru Nanak Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant had paid another sum of Rs.59,543/- in cash to Mr. A. Sabharwal for the purchase of machines. A letter was sent by the petitioner also to the SHO, Police Station, Bhogpur dated 15.09.2003, in which it has been stated that M/s. P.S. Enterprises was their dealer for the promotion of sale of Usha Sewing Machines.