Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/474

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon JV-Prione Business Services Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kumar Adv.

24 Oct 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 474 of 10.10.2019

Date of Decision            :   24.10.2019

 

Gurpreet Singh aged about 49 years s/o Gurbaksh Singh r/o #818, LIG, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, authorized by P & M, Polyfab, Pvt. Ltd., Hambran, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

Amazon JV-Prione Business Services Pvt. Ltd., B-XY-550, NH5, K-Block, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory.

 

…Opposite parties

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, an employee/authorized person of firm P&M, Polyfab, Pvt.Ltd, filed this complaint by claiming that complainant firm had been approaching Op for depositing of electricity bills online. Amount of Rs.7,81,340/- was to be deposited on or before 27.05.2019 and as such, complainant deposited the above said electricity bills online on 24.05.2019 within time through site of OP via net banking. OP issued proper receipt regarding this deposit. Number of that receipt is mentioned in para no.2 of complaint. Complainant held talk several times with Op regarding the bill amount and one Shalini, an employee of OP, assured the complainant that they will be responsible for all the fault on behalf of their site. Even assurance was given that if any penalty happened to be imposed, then OP will bear the amount of penalty. Op failed to deposit the bill amount in PSPCL account and that is why latter issued new bill of Rs.16,47,860/- including the disputed bill of amount of Rs.7,81,340/- plus surcharge of Rs.32,555/- and interest of previous arrears of Rs.12,208/-. OP returned the basic bill amount of Rs.7,81,340/-, but never returned the surcharge amount of Rs.32,555/- and interest of previous arrears of Rs.12,208/-. Despite service of legal notice dated 19.08.2019, above referred total amount of Rs.44,763/- of surcharge and interest of previous arrears amount, not refunded and that is why this complaint.

2.                Arguments at the admission stage heard.

3.                From perusal of copy of board of resolution of P&M Polyfab Pvt. Ltd  Ex.C1, it is made out that Gurpreet Singh has been authorized on behalf of P&M Polyfab Pvt. Ltd to pursue the case against Amazon company i.e. Op company. Amount of Rs.7,81,340/- was to be deposited by the complainant company after availing online services of OP for depositing of  amount mentioned in bill Ex.C7. After perusal of Ex.C7, it is made out that this amount was to be deposited for availing services of PSPCL for consumption of electricity for LS-General Industry. This bill Ex.C7 was issued in the name of P&M Poly Fabrics village Hambran. So, it is obvious that amount of Rs.7,81,340/- was to be deposited by P&M Poly Fabrics with PSPCL in view of availing of commercial services of PSPCL regarding consumption of electricity. Role of OP was to deposit this amount online for and on behalf of complainant and as such, services virtually availed by the complainant in connection with commercial transaction.

4.       As and when services availed for commercial activities or commercial venture, then the complainant concerned will not be a consumer in view of law laid down in cases titled as R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.); Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.); Manu Talwar vs. DPT Ltd-IV(2015)CPJ-396(N.C.); Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House-2015(IV)CLT-265(N.C.); Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.); Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited-(2011)1-Supreme Court Cases-525(S.C.) and Nikita Cares vs. Surya Palace IV(2015)CPJ-405(N.C.).  Being so, this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed at admission stage itself.

5.                Sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself, but with the observations that the complainant will be at liberty to avail remedy before appropriate Court/Forum for redressal of his grievance. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                   (Jyotsna Thatai)                            (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.10.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.