Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/401

RAKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GADGET COPS BRAND - Opp.Party(s)

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution.23.6.15

Complaint case. No.401 /15                                                           Date of Order:10.11.16

In the matter of

Rakesh Kumar Singh,

202 Jyoti Shikhar,

8 District Center, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-58.                                                                                                         COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Gadget Cops Brand of

M/s RMP Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

A-83, Sector 2, Noida,

U.P.

Regd. Office:

Director,

M/s RMP Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

T-24, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II,

New Delhi-20.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

Mobile Planet,

D.D.A. Shop No.9,

Plot 7A, District Center,

JanakPuri, New Delhi-58.                                                                                                OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

 

            The Present complaint is filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, herein complainant, against Gadget Cops & Ors under section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act for directions to the Opposite Party for repair of his mobile handset  as per the insurance contract. 

2/-

            The brief necessary facts for the disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant on 8.8.13 purchased one mobile handset Samsung Galaxy S4with IMEI No.357196059422480 for sale consideration of Rs.37,700- vide invoice No.2013-14/R-1-02868 from Opposite Party-2.  The complainant  insured the mobile handset with Opposite Party-1  on payment of Rs.4000/-  for two years vide Protection Plan No.01-1014454.  The mobile handset developed fault in May-2015.  The complainant  lodged complaint on 1.6.15 to Opposite Party-1.  But despite repeated telephonic calls, none from Opposite Party-1picked the mobile handset for repairs.  The complainant was told by Opposite Party-1that the mobile handset could not be repaired under the Protection Plan  vide clause 7 of the Plan as already four services were provided by them.  Where the complainant availed two services vide job sheets No.2526  and 8420 dated 11.12.13 and 29.9.14 respectively.  The complainant sent a notice to Opposite Party-1 for rejecting request of complainant for providing services as per the Protection Plan.  But the same was not replied.  Hence the present complaint  for directions to the Opposite Party to repair the mobile handset   free of cost as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.  But none appeared on their behalf.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.12.15.    

 

            When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence, he filed affidavit dated 26.3.16 and relied upon invoice No. 2013-14/R-1-02868 dated 8.8.13, copy of Protection Plan No.01-1014454, job sheets dated 11.12.13 and 29.9.14, copy of notice dated 6.6.15 and e-mail dated 11.6.15.    The complainant in the affidavit deposed that he purchased one mobile handset Samsung Galaxy S4with IMEI No.357196059422480 for sale consideration of Rs.37,700- vide invoice No.2013-14/R-1-02868 from Opposite Party-2 for commercial

3/-

use.  The mobile handset developed fault and was given for repairs.  Which was declined by the Opposite Party-2.  He once again prayed for directions to Opposite Parties  to repair the mobile handset without any charges or to replace it with new mobile handset and pay compensation on account of sufferings and litigation expenses. 

We have heard the complainant  in person and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly. 

 

 

            On perusal of the invoice dated 8.8.13  it revealed that the invoice is not in name of complainant.  The complainant failed to show that he purchased the mobile handset and  If it is presumed that  the mobile handset is purchased by the complainant he himself in the affidavit dated 26.6.16 admitted that the mobile handset is for commercial use.   Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce definition of consumer provided under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act which runs as under:

Section 2(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)  ³[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 ³[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  ⁴[  but  does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

⁵[Explanation—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods brought and used by him and services availed

 

4/-

by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;]   

 

            In the present complaint, the  complainant admittedly purchased the mobile handset Samsung Galaxy S4with IMEI No.357196059422480 for sale consideration of Rs.37,700- vide invoice No.2013-14/R-1-02868 from Opposite Party-2 for commercial use and insured the same with Opposite Party-1.   Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act according to Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.   

 

                        In the light of above discussion and observations, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.  Resultantly  the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.  

 

Order pronounced on :10.11.2016

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT