Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/772

Amman sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Express - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No: 772 dated 25.10.2017.                                                             Date of decision: 02.11.2017.   

         

Aman Sood son of Ashok Sood, C/o. N.R. Electrical B-28, 2271, Urban Estate Adjoining Dugri Phase-I, Near Ram Lal Bhasin School, Jawadi Khurd, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                  Versus

1. DTDC Express Limited Courier and Cargo Limited, 2E/16, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi-55.
2. Sobhagyam Computech Pvt. Ltd., 501, Red Rose Building, 5^th Floor, 4950, Nehru Palace, New Delhi-19.

…..Opposite parties 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by pleading that he is running electronic business under name and style of N.R. Electricals and he placed orders regarding certain goods with Sobhagyam Computech Pvt. Ltd. Details of the goods are given below:-

          a)       300 Pcs of Micro SD 4GB Memory Card

          b)       300 Pcs of Micro SD 8GB Memory Card

          c)       5 Pcs of Pen drive 64 GB

          d)       5 Pcs of Micro SD 64GB Memory Card

          e)       15 Pcs of Micro SD 32GB Memory Card

 

These goods were purchased for sale consideration of Rs.1,52,775/- including Central sales tax. OP2 sent the above said parcel on 07.02.2017 through DTDC Courier (OP1), but when the said parcel was received by the complainant at Ludhiana, then he was shocked to know that parcel was empty one. On inquiry, complainant got reply as if employees have committed theft.

2.                 Main question involved in this case is as to whether consumer complaint is maintainable or as to whether complainant is a consumer or not. It is the case of complainant that he availed services of OP1 as consumer after purchase of the goods in trade from OP2 and as such, it is obvious that services of OP1 were availed in connection with a commercial transaction entered by complainant with OP2. There is no averment or pleading or assertion at all in the complaint or affidavit that business carried by the complainant for earning livelihood by way of self employment. As the services of OP1 availed in connection with commercial venture, not shown to be run for earning livelihood for self employment and as such, certainly complainant is not a consumer within meaning of section 2(1) (d) of the Act. As and when a generator set is purchased for generating electricity to run a factory for manufacturing handloom products, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per law laid down in case titled as R.K. Handicraft and others Vs M/s. Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others II (2015) CPJ 13 (NC). Likewise purchase of computer software for Managing Director running business will not render the complainant concerned a consumer as per law laid down in case titled as Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd. I (2014) CPJ  332(SC).  Breach of buyer agreement for purchase of commercial space will not make the complainant concerned consumer as per law laid down in case titled as Manu Talwar Vs DPT Ltd. IV(2015) CPJ 396 (NC). Car purchased for director of the company running business not for earning livelihood will not render the complainant concerned a consumer as per law laid down in case titled as Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House 2015(IV) CLT 265 (NC). There are catena of other cases also pointing out that in case any goods purchased or services availed for a commercial purpose or in connection with any commercial venture, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. Reference to cases of  The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs M/s. Bhaskar Textile 2015(1) CLT 89(NC); Birla Technologies Limited Vs Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited I (2011) Supreme Court Cases 525; Nikita Cares Vs Surya Palace IV(2015) CPJ 405(NC); Jagrook Nagrik and others Vs Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others III(2015) CPJ 1 (NC) can be made in this respect. Being so complainant is not a consumer within meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act and as such, this consumer complaint is not maintainable and as such, same is hereby dismissed at admission stage itself, but with observation that complainant may avail appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:02.11.2017.

Gobind Ram.