CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.146/2006
MRS. URMILA DEVI
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S PROMOTIONAL CLUB
D-815, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110065
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
1. M/S GODREJ APPLIANCES LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, SHERSHAH SURI MARG,
OKHLA,
NEW DELHI-110067
2. MR. DHRUV SHARMA
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
M/S GODREJ APPLIANCES LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, SHERSHAH SURI MARG,
OKHLA,
NEW DELHI-110067
3. MR. DEPTENDU BHATTACHARYA
M/S GODREJ APPLIANCES LTD.,
CEO- APPLIANCES DIVISION
PIROJSHANAGAR, VIKHROLI,
MUMBAI-400079
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 06.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that she is an individual person engaged in the business of export of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Promotional Club. OP-1 is a company engaged in the business of providing services of annual maintenance contract (AMC) to its customers for repair/maintenance of air conditioners. OP-2, 3 and 4 are officers responsible for day to day functioning of OP-1. OP-1 through its representative approached complainant and offered to provide the services of AMC for air conditioners installed at the office and residential premises of complainant. The complainant purchased AMC services for 10 air conditioners installed at the office and residential premises of complainant from OP-1 on 06.6.2005 vide bill No.0228 at a total cost of Rs.25,016/-. It is stated in the complaint that 5 air conditioners out of above mentioned 10 air conditioners developed some defect and were not working properly from 30.6.2005. Complainant immediately lodged complaint to OP and requested them to send an authorised technical officer to remove snag. However nobody visited from the OP-1 company to rectify the defect. Ultimately complainant sent written complaint dated 04.7.2005 but OP did bother to visit the premises. It is stated that it is clear cut case of deficiency in service.
Complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to refund Rs.25,016/- paid by her for AMC charges and Rs.5 lakh for compensation.
OP in written statement took the plea that complainant is not a consumer as the services of OP were availed for commercial use. The air conditioners were installed at premises which is purely used for commercial purpose. Complainant is not an individual person but it is proprietorship concern engaged in commercial activities hence complainant is not a consumer. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the AMC for 10 air conditioners vide bill No.0228 for an amount of Rs.25,016/- however it is stated that the complainant paid Rs.12,508/- for half yearly contract. It is further stated that all complaints made by the complainant were attended immediately and all defects pointed out in the air conditioners were rectified and repaired by the OP. The trained technicians of the company had visited on 06.7.2005 to check the air conditioners and made all the air conditioners perfectly okay. The mandatory service of air conditioners was done on 14.6.2005 but the customer refused to sign on the work order card saying that the responsible person is not available. It is stated that the customer started misbehaving with technician and executive of OP hence OP decided to cancel the contract. The refund on the prorata basis was sent to the complainant for Rs.6,397/- vide cheque No.212962 dated 12.7.2005 drawn on Central Bank of India alongwith letter. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service.
We have carefully gone through the record and the written submission of the parties. The first point for consideration is whether complainant is a consumer or not. In para 1 of the complaint it is specifically stated that she is an individual person engaged in the business of export of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Promotional Club and in para 3 of the complaint, it is stated that OP approached the complainant and offered to sell services of AMC for air conditioners installed at the office and residential premises of the complainant.
It is significant to note that the receipt No.0228 shows that the services of OP were availed by M/s Promotional Club in respect of 10 air conditioners installed at D-815, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is engaged in commercial activities and is running office at the aforesaid premises. It seems that complainant is using the premises as office cum residential purposes. Complainant has nowhere stated in the entire complaint that she is engaged in the commercial activities for earning her livelihood. It is only when OP took the plea in the written statement that complainant is not a consumer, complainant stated in the replication that the air conditioners were installed for consumption of herself and her family members at their residence and moreover she is engaged in the business for earning her livelihood and thus a consumer.
It is settled law that no new plea can be taken in the replication. The most important aspect is that complainant has neither stated in the complaint nor in her evidence filed by way of affidavit that she is engaged in the commercial activities to earn her livelihood. Complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
