M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No.924 / 2019. Jagriti Road Lines, Through its Proprietor Mohd. Asif, 32, Jogipura, Barkheri, Bhopal (M.P.). …. APPELLANT.

Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Arera Colony, Bhopal.

2. Manappuram Finance Limited, Through Branch Manager, A-002, Surendra Vilas Palace, Narayan Nagar Near Barkatullah University, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.). …. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of O R D E R

Order

02.03.2022 Shri Mohammad Allauddin, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Pradeep Nighojkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

None for the respondent no.2.

Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short the “District Commission”) in CC No.206/2019 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint at the threshold by holding that the complainant will not cover under the term “consumer” as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act of

1986”).

3. The District Commission for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion has considered the fact that the complaint has been filed in the name of a Firm and having regard to the fact that the complainant has constituted a Firm for carrying out his business, it cannot be termed to be for the business for earning of his livelihood by way of self-employment.

4. In our considered view the approach of the District Commission is wholly erroneous. Such finding about dislodging the complainant to be not covering under the term consumer ought not to have recorded more particularly when there was pleadings available in consonance of “Explanation” to the definition of the term “consumer”. The complaint, as is clear from the impugned order, has been dismissed at the threshold. Thus, in our considered view the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside.

5. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on

4.4.2022.

6. Since the impugned order has been passed without issuance of notice and getting reply from the opposite parties, the contention that the complaint is maintainable, is kept open. The same shall be decided by the District Commission after getting the reply and the affidavits in accordance with law.

7. All contentions of the parties to that effect are kept open.

8. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.

(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)

PRESIDENT MEMBER Phadke