BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1075/2016
Complaint filed on 09.02.2016
Date of Judgement.09.05.2017
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : 1. Keerthi Gowda,
S/o A.Siddaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at 96/A, Manasara Road,
Indiranagar, Mysuru.
(Sri. S. Punith raj., Advocate)
V/s
Opponent /s : 1. Flipkart Co.Ltd.,
#447/C, 1st Floor
1st A cross, 12th main,
Koramangala 4th block
Near Telephone Exhange
Bengaluru-560034.
Represented by its
Managing Director.
(Sri Bharth babu, Advocate)
2. M/s Anyx Incorporation
# 2, II Floor, Rameshwar Chamber
Opp. Sadbhavana Hospital,
Mangala main road,
Rajkot, Gujarath.
(Exparte)
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 09.02.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 28.03.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 09.05.2017 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 1 years 3 months |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,
PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking for the relief of compensation along with other relief.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant purchased Seagate barracuda 500 GB desktop internal hard drive from opposite party on 10.07.2015 product has got one warranty.
3. Further when complainant installed the same to his computer which was placed in Keerthi comforts and lodging for the purpose of recording the CC TV footage, later it was crashed, it was not functioning properly as it was used at lodge for security purpose and the lodge is situated opposite to Zoo- garden. Mysuru.
4. Further when the defect of the products was brought to the knowledge of opposite party they gave lame reasons and refused to rectify the same.
5. Further in spite of compliant efforts the opposite parties did not respond, hence this complaint is filed seeking for the relief of damages and other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
6. The notice to the opposite party no 1 and 2 duly served . opposite party no.1 is represented by counsel and filed version , opposite party no 2 remained absent , placed exparte . Opposite party no .1 in his version has taken the contention that they provide website for seller and buyers to market, and to sell their products and they work as intermediary between these two, they provide platform for seller, manufacture, and buyers through their website.
7. Further they contends that there is no transaction between them and buyers when there is no contract between seller and buyers for that reason they cannot be made liable, wherefore opposite party no.1 prays for the dismissal of complaint against them.
8. The complainant and opposite party no.1 have filed examination in chief affidavit and documents from their side, heard arguments perused written arguments and documents reserved for orders.
9. The points that arise for our consideration are;-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable under consumer protection Act of 1986?
- What order?
10. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
11 . Point No.1:- On perusal of complainant averments in particular para 3 complaint it is very clear that hard disk purchased by complainant from opposite party, is for usage in the computer which was used and placed at Keerthi comforts and lodging. For the purpose of recording CC Tv footage in the lodge owned by complainant from these averments. It is an admitted fact by the complainant that hard disk which was purchased by complainant is used for the commercial usage, when the complainant has admitted that the item purchased by him is used for the business purpose, when such being the case the complaint filed by complainant does not come under the definition of consumer under such circumstance the complainant will not come under the perview of CP Act 1986. Opposite party has relied on the ruling Hon’ble State Commission of Chandigarh, in a case reported in CPJ 2014 volume 1 at page 49 in a complaint KUS infonet PVT Vs Vivek bansal where in the Hon’ble commission as held the principal’s of ruling is that “Act provide for business consumer dispute and not for the business to business dispute- complainant is not consumer” by applying the above principal’s we can safely come to conclusion that the above complainant is not a consumer since he is involved in commercial transaction through his business , viewed from any angle from the above discussion by appreciating the admission, and fact of the case the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
12. According to this forum we answered Point no.1 in the Negative and pass the following:
13. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2.Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 9th May 2017)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.