1. SRI T.N. SRIvastava has argued the matter with ability. He is aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Jaunpur dated 6.4.1993 refusing to interfere and decree the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, Jaunpur in the shape of Complaint Case No. 54/1992.
2. THE only question requiring attention is whether on the facts of the case stated in the complaint, the provisions of COPRA could be invoked by the Forum on the supposition that the complainant is a consumer. THE view taken by the District Forum is that on the facts of the instant case the complainant was not a consumer.
The admitted facts are that the complainant had placed an order for Electronic Display Board with the opposite party. Bereft of the details, the supplying of the said Board is admitted by the opposite parties respondents. There is some dispute relating to the actual amount paid, the place of payment and also place of manufacture of the board. Suffice it to say that according to the complainant''s own version, he used the said board to invite any other person, organization or firm to advertise through that board his or its own products.
The complainant says in the complaint that the said board was put by him as a consumer to earn his livelihood. On the said pleadings Sri Srivastava contends that the fixing of the board was only to earn livelihood and, therefore, it will be covered within the meaning of Clause D of Section 2 of the COPRA. In this connection reliance has been placed by Sri Srivastava on the decision of the Hon''ble NCDRC in the case of Director, Forest Research Institute v. M/s. Sunshine Enterprises and Another. The reliance on the said decision is wholly misplaced. Recalling order was the subject matter of discussion before the Hon''ble NCDRC and it has been observed that no case for recalling of the order was made out and, therefore, the application was dismissed.
3. REVERTING back to the facts, it may be pointed out that admittedly the appellant had ordered for the said electronic display board so that others could advertise their goods through the said board. Squarely, therefore, such an action comes within the mischief of the clause "it does not include a person who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose".
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no force in the argument of Sri Srivastava that the District Forum has erred in rejecting the complaint.
4. MR. Rajesh Chandra has put in appearance of the respondent. There is no error to be found in the judgment to be interfered with. The appeal consequently fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.
