Haryana

Sirsa

CC/22/684

Inder Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Distt Ayurvedic Officer - Opp.Party(s)

SP Toksia

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/684
( Date of Filing : 25 Nov 2022 )
 
1. Inder Kumar Goyal
Resident of 20 Janta Bhawan Road Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Distt Ayurvedic Officer
Jind Tech Distt Jind
Jind
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Padam Singh Thakur PRESIDENT
  Sukhdeep Kaur MEMBER
  O.P Tuteja MEMBER
 
PRESENT:SP Toksia, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 08 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Inder Kumar Goyal vs.  District Ayurvedic Officer Jind.

Dated 08.06.2023.

Present:-      Sh. S.P. Toksia, Advocate for complainant.                         

                Mrs. Sudesh Clerk for opposite party.

                   Reply to the application for dismissal of complaint not filed by complainant. Heard. The opposite party has filed an application for dismissal of complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as per provisions of Section 2 (7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 since complainant is doing commercial activities and is running a firm under the name and style of Ram Medical Agency. The perusal of file reveals that complainant has claimed interest on the amount of material supplied by complainant’s firm to the opposite party and from the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant is not a consumer as provided under Section 2 (7) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which reads as under:-

          Section 2(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

  1. 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.

2. In view of above said section, the complainant is not a consumer of the op because complainant’s firm supplied the dispensing material and Ayurvedic medicine to the opposite party and has claimed interest for the delayed period, so it cannot be said that complainant is a consumer of op. Moreover, complainant is doing activities for commercial purposes. As such complaint is not maintainable in this Commission and same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to approach competent court of law for redressal of his grievances, if so required. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

 

                             Member                Member                President                                                                                                                 DCDRC, Sirsa.

 

 

 
 
[ Padam Singh Thakur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sukhdeep Kaur]
MEMBER
 
 
[ O.P Tuteja]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.