STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL REVISION PETITION NO. SC/19/RP/33/2021 Ravindra Krishna Kulkarni PRESENT ADDRESS - Landmark Education India, B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar, West Mumbai- 400 086. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus Manish Agarwal & Another PRESENT ADDRESS - S/o, Shyam Lal Agarwal. 1/7, Government Housing Estate, Nandan Nagar, Kolkata- 700 083. ,WEST BENGAL.

Gopal Cuckemane Rao PRESENT ADDRESS - Landmark Worldwide Breakthrough. B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, L.B.S.

Marg, Ghatkopar, West Mumbai- 400 086. ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJEE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SAMIKSHA BHATTACHARYA , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

Ms. Soni Ojha, Ms. Punam Choudhury (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Saikat Mali (Advocate)

Ms. Asha Ghosh, Ms. Sanhita Shaoo (Advocate)

DATED: 12/06/2025

ORDER

Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member The instant Revision Petition has been filed by the Revisionist (OP No.2 of the Complaint Petition being NO.CC/141/2020) questioning the propriety of the order dated 10.09.2021 of CC/141/2020 pending before the Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata I (North). The OP No.2 filed a petition being No.MA/18/2020 challenging the maintainability of the Complaint case on the ground that the OP No.2/Revisionist neither rendered any services nor received any consideration from the Complainant/Respondent No.1 in the present Revision Petition.

The MA/18/2020 was dismissed on contest by the Ld. DCDRC with the observation that “Managing Director and Director though will not personally liable but they are liable to some extent as per express conditions mentioned in the Article of Memorandum of Association.

So, in my view, a juristic person appoints a person for his day to day work as Managing Director....... And the liability of Managing Director and Director are within the ambit and limit of the Article of Memorandum of Association......

So, in my view, the petition for expunging the name of OP No.1 and OP No. 2 has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the MA case No.18/2020 be and the same is dismissed on contest.”

The Revisionist has argued that the Ld. DCDRC has erred in law in failing to appreciate that the Managing Director of the Company is neither involved in the in the day to day business of the company nor has dealings with the participants of the course including complainant. The company itself is a juristic entity and cannot be prosecuted through any natural person. A Managing Director of the company cannot be held responsible for each and every day to day activity and if Managing Director is allowed to be impleaded as a party to each and every proceeding, it would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the company. He has further submitted that the complainant did not avail any service or purchase any good from the company. The complainant participated in a course conducted by the company which under no circumstances can be held as rendering any service. As such, the complainant does not fall within the purview of a consumer.

Hence, the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 10.09.2021 passed by Ld. DCDRC, Kolkata -I (North).

The Respondent No.1/Complainant of the CC/141/2021 appeared before this Commission and filed the Brief Notes of Arguments on 21.03.2023. On the date of final hearing none appeared for the complainant.

In the BNA the complainant/Revisionist No.1 has stated that after admission of the Complaint before the Ld. DCDRC, on 23.12.2020 the complainant himself was present before the Ld. District Commission and he was ready to file an application for amendment of the petition of complaint for incorporation of the name of the company with the existing OP no.1 and expunging the name of OP No.2/Respondent No.2 of the present Revision petition but could not file the same due to COVID-19 pandemic. The Petition was filed before the Ld. DCDRC on 22.02.2021. On 25.03.2021 the Ld. DCDRC has been plea