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

FA No.418 / 2018.

Priyanka Gupta, d/o Shri Rajesh Gupta, 360, Sector 9B, Saket Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.). …. APPELLANT.

Versus

1. Kappa Engg. P. Ltd., a. 94, Shivam Estate -3, Behind Hotel Bhagyoday, Near Changodar Bridge, Ahmedabad – 382213 b Survey 270/2, Madapatna Village, Jigani, Bangalore – 560 105.

2. Kappa Building Machines P. Ltd.

a. 214-215, Kerala GIDC estate, Bawia, Dist – Ahmedabad 382 220 b. Survey 270/2, Madapatna Village, Jigani 560 105 Bangalore

3. Ilias Karakhalios Director, Kappa Engg. P. Ltd. a. 94, Shivam Estate -3, Behind Hotel Bhagyoday, Near Changodar Bridge, Ahmedabad – 382213 b Survey 270/2, Madapatna Village, Jigani, Bangalore – 560 105.

4. Ilias Karakhalios Director, Kappa Building Machines P. Ltd.

a. 214-215, Kerala GIDC estate, Bawia, Dist – Ahmedabad 382 220 b. Survey 270/2, Madapatna Village, Jigani 560 105 Bangalore …. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of O R D E R

Order

12.07.2022 Appellant is present in person.

None for the respondents.

Heard.

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act of 1986”) whereby the appellant – complainant has challenged the order dated 4.10.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal No.1 (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.108/2018 holding that the complainant is not covered under the term ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1986.

2. The appellant has pointed out the pleadings raised in the complaint to the effect that the appellant is doing the business for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. She submits that inspite of the aforesaid pleadings supported by affidavit and the documents the District Commission held that since the appellant is doing the business the appellant will not be covered under the term ‘consumer’ under the Act of

1986.

3. Having gone through the pleadings and the record we are of the view that the District Commission after proceeding ex-parte against the opposite parties straightway passed the impugned order. We find that before passing the impugned order no opportunity has been given to the appellant to lead evidence and to substantiate her plea that she is doing the business for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment.

4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is unsustainable. The same deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.

5. Needless to say that the District Commission shall pass fresh order without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.

6. We expect the District Commission to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

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

4.8.2022.

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

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

PRESIDENT MEMBER Phadke