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

APPEAL NO. 397/2020 Ocean Enterprises Through Partner S. Vinod S/o S. Shashidharan and Mukesh Anjane S/o Kishan Anjane Address – 207, 2^nd floor Vikram Urban

25/1 Scheme Number, 54, Mechanic Nagar Indore (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Ram Kumar Kataria S/o Dalchandra Kataria Proprietor M/s Sunpride Enterprises Address – 60, Abhishek Nagar Nabada Road, Kajipura Dara Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh – 247 001

2. Ketan Kataria S/o Dalchandra Kataria Authorised M/s Sunpride Enterprises Address – 60, Abhishek Nagar Nabada Road, Kajipura Dara Saharanpur Uttar Pradesh – 247 001 ... Respondents BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

MS. SANGEETA MOHARIR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.

NONE FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 06.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 20.2.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.2, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 142/2020, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint at motion hearing stage. 2. Heard.

3. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the subject machine, which was purchased by the complainant was to be installed at Indore. The District Commission observing that the opposite parties do not conduct any business at Indore, reached a conclusion that the District Commission, Indore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The fact is that the cause of action arises at Indore, since the said machine was to be delivered at Indore. Mention of wrong address, as has been observed by the District Commission, is just a typographical error, which could not be a basis of dismissal of complaint. She further argued that the District Commission has wrongly observed that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, since he is working for commercial gains. She referred judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited vs. SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. passed in Civil Appal No. 7966/2022 and argued that definition of ‘person’ is very broad and firm/company are also included in such definition. The complainant before the District Commission had pleaded that he had purchased the said machine for the purpose of earning livelihood by way self-employment. Therefore, the District Commission has committed error in dismissing the complaint at admission stage. She thus prayed that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission with direction to decide it on merits after issuing notice to the opposite parties.

4. We find that the complainant before the District commission has submitted that he had purchased the machine for manufacturing sanitary napkin pads. He alleged that work order for said machine was issued on 3.2.2019 and it was to be installed by 18.3.2019 but the opposite parties despite notices and reminders failed to install the same in complainant’s premises. There are specific averments in the complaint regarding purchase of said machine for earning livelihood by way of self-employment.

5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, we reach a conclusion that the District Commission has hastily dismissed the complaint at the stage of motion hearing. The points on which the complaint was dismissed could have been decided better after issuing notice to the opposite parties and after their version was brought on record.

6. In view of the above the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.

7. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 9^th February, 2026.