BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                                        Complaint no.      144 of 2013         

                                                                       Date of Institution:    16.8.2013

                                                                        Date of Decision:     26.7.2016                    

Suneel Kumar son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of village Mirjapur, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Anand Udyog, Janta Bhawan Road, opposite Old Stadium, Sirsa Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana), through its proprietor/partner, (Authorized Distributor of Voltas- A Tata Product).

2.       The Manager, Voltas Limited, A-43, Mohan Company Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44.

                                                                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   Before:              SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                             SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. P.K.Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. J.N.Monga, Advocate for opposite party no. 1.

                   Opposite party no. 2 exparte vide order dated 10.6.2014.

ORDER

          In nutshell complaint case that he had purchased four voltas refrigerators serial No. 5210128P11 KOO 4619, KOO 4645, KOO4646,  KOO 4634 having capacity of 500 Litre Chest Freezer and one refrigerator of 405 Litre GSL Chest Freeze 5210138P11 EOO 1268 from opposite party no. 1 who is the authorized dealer of opposite party no. 2 against cash payment of Rs. 1,26000/- vide bill no. 5492 dated 15.2.2012. At the time of

                                                2.

purchase OP no. 1 gave guarantee of two years from the date of purchase in all respect of above said refrigerators. Now the grievances of the complainant are that refrigerators bearing numbers 4619 and 4634 are not working properly and motors of these refrigerators become defective.  As alleged mechanic sent by the OP no. 1 to the house of the complainant found that there is manufacturing defects in these refrigerators. Despite the several complaints to the OP no. 2 through OP No.1 Ops failed to replace the defective refrigerators as per the given guarantee. Hence this complaint.

2.                On notice OP NO. 1 appeared through his counsel and contested the case , whereas OP No. 2 proceeded exparte vide order of the Forum dated 10.6.2014.  OP No. 1 took the preliminary objections that complainat is not maintainable before this Forum as the complainant had purchased the products for commercial use and complainant is not a “consumer” under the definition of the consumer. It is further replied that refrigerators are working properly and complainant is not entitled for any compensation or replacement. OP No. 1 further denied allegations.

3.                By way of evidence complainant produced his affidavit Ex. P1, photo copy of bill Ex.P2, mechanic certificates Ex. P3 and Ex. P4, affidavit of one Deepak Kumar Ex. P5; whereas the Ops produced affidavit of one Baldev Raj proprietor of OP no. 1 Ex. RW1.

4.                Arguments addressed by both the sides have been heard with perusal of record.  After hearing both the sides we feel it necessary to decide the preliminary objections of commercial use taken by the OP No. 1 first, before going to the other aspects on merits.  It is admitted fact that complainant purchased five refrigerators of huge capacity against payment of Rs. 1,26,000/-. As alleged by the Ops complainant purchased the

                                                3.

refrigerators for commercial use.  On the other hand, there is no explanation from the complainant side as  to why he purchased five numbers refrigerators of huge capacity against such a heavy payment of Rs. 1,26,000/- .  It is fact that no person will purchase five numbers of refrigerators as in this case for the domestic use.  Moreover, there is no case of purchase for the purpose earning livelihood by means of self-employment. In these circumstance in our view complainant purchased the refrigerators only for commercial use. As defined under Section 2 (1) (d)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up- to-date a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose does not  fall under the ambit of consumer.  Accordingly it is established that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. 

5.                As such complaint is hereby dismissed but no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties under Sub Rule 9 of Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 2004.   File be consigned to the records.

Announced in open Forum.                                       President,

Dated: 26.7.2016                      Member.          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                         Redressal Forum, Sirsa.