BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 104 of 2011 Date of Institution : 22.02.2011 Date of Decision : 11.05.2011 Dr. Ayushi Verma, #2330, Top Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S Apparel & Moore, SCO No. 80-82, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Partner/ Prop. .…..Opposite Party CORAM: Sh.P.D. GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Mukesh Verma, Authorized Representative of Complainant. None for OP. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased a ladies purse from OP on 28.8.2010, after paying a sum of `1250/-. It was alleged that no cash memo was issued by the OP on the pretext that the bill books were under printing process. When the Complainant unwrapped the parcel, to her utter dismay, she found that the purse was not the same, for which she had made the payment. She, immediately, brought the said fact to the notice of OP on 30.8.2010, but he did not pay any heed to her request. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, the present complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, has been filed. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OP, seeking its version of the case. 3] Initially, one Mr. Kabir Sarin, Advocate put in appearance for OP. But, subsequently, when nobody turned up on behalf of OP, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.04.2011. 3] Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 4] We have heard the authorized representative of Complainant and have also perused the record. 5] Admittedly, the complainant has not produced onrecord the cash memo of Rs.1250/- issued by Ops for the purchase of lady purse. 6] Now it is to be seen whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer as envisaged under section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Section 2(i)(d) of the Act is reproduced for the purpose of convenience:- “(d) "consumer" means any person who— (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;” 7] From the definition of ‘consumer’ referred to above, a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails the services for consideration is a consumer. In the instant case, admittedly, the complainant has not produced the copy of invoice/bill to prove that the said lady purse was sold by the OP. Thus, it can legitimately be concluded that she is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2(i)(d) of the Act. 8] Since the complainant has failed to prove herself to be the consumer of the OP, therefore, there is no need to go further details of the matter. Consequently, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | May 11 , 2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D. Goel] | | Member | Member | President | ‘Dutt’ | | | |
DISTRICT FORUM – I | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 104 OF 2011 | | PRESENT: Sh. Mukesh Verma, Auth. Representative of Complainant. OP Ex-parte. | O R D E R ========== Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed. |
| | | | May 11, 2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D. Goel] | | Member | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
