DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.1015 of 2018

                                               Date of institution:  26.09.2018                                             Date of decision   :  28.11.2018

1.     Dr. Sonia Oberoi, Director & Co-Founder, Akss, Medi Aesthetic & Cosmetology Clinic, 538 (Basement) Sector 33-B, Chandigarh 160020.

2.     Dr. Neetu Narula, Director & Co-Founder, Akss, Medi Aesthetic & Cosmetology Clinic, 538 (Basement) Sector 33-B, Chandigarh 160020.

…….Complainants

Versus

1.     HT Media Ltd. Industrial Area, PH-8-B, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its authorised signatory.

2.     HT Media Ltd., Industrial Area, PH-8-B, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its G.M.

3.     Sanjay Kumar Dimri, authorised signatory HT Media Ltd. Industrial Area, PH-8-B, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

                                                        ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     None for complainants.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainants being partners and directors as well as co-founders of Akss, Medi Aesthetic & Cosmetology Clinic, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh, availed services of OPs by booking advertisement in the newspaper Hindustan Times. This booking was done on approach by OP No.3 for booking of the advertisement.  Thereafter sample of the advertisement, which was to be published on 10.09.2016 and 11.09.2016, was shared through e-mail dated 03.09.2016. Payment of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.93,000/- respectively through two cheques was made by complainant and accordingly advertisements on 10.09.2016 and 11.09.2016 were published, but those were not upto mark as promised by OPs. Intimation of this deficiency was given to OPs, but nothing heard from them. So complainants stopped payment of the cheques, but OPs in reply sent e-mail dated 25.11.2016 for admitting fault regarding printing quality. They offered for one free advertisement to compensate complainants. However, later on OPs played double game because they pursued complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act despite assurance of publishing free advertisement. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment and agony also claimed.

2.             From the contents of complaint, it is not at all made out that complainant concern runs business for earning livelihood by way of self employment. Rather booking of advertisement was done for commercial purpose for promoting business of Akss, Medi Aesthetic & Cosmetology Clinic and as such certainly complainants are not consumers within meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. As and when complainant is not consumer, then consumer complaint is not maintainable.

3.             As per law laid down in case titled as R.K. Handicaraft and others Vs. M/s. Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others II (2015) CPJ 13 (N.C) when a generator set purchased for generating electricity to run a factory for manufacturing of handloom products, then the complainant concerned is not a consumer. Likewise, if computer software is purchased by a private limited company without pleading that same used by the Managing Director for running business for earning livelihood or self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per law laid down in case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rance Consumer Pvt. Ltd. I (2014) CPJ 332 (NC). Even in case of Manu Talwar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DPT Ltd. IV(2015) CPJ 396 (N.C.) it has been held that when breach of buyer agreement qua purchase of commercial space takes place, then complainant concerned is not a consumer. In case titled as Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House 2015 (IV) CLT 265 (N.C.)  it has been held that in case a car is exclusively purchased not for earning livelihood by way of self employment for the director of the company, then the complainant concerned will not be a consumer. Ratio of above cited cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such this consumer complaint not maintainable and the same is dismissed at admission stage.

4.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage itself being not maintainable.  File be indexed and consigned to record.

Announced

November 28, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member