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.377/2009
SH. FURQAN QURESHI,
1223, RAKABGANJ,
BEHIND DELITE CINEMA,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD.,
D-18/2 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II,
NEW DELHI-110020
THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 12.10.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant gave an order for supply of a Digi-Cam Discovery 852” on 25.11.2005 to OP and OP issued a retail invoice to complainant by mentioning product code no.6300 for a price of Rs.6057.69 plus other taxes, total amounting to Rs.6300/-. Complainant paid Rs.6300/- for the said product.
In December, 2005 complainant approached OP for delivery of the said item on many occasions personally as well as telephonically but till date OP had not supplied the same to complainant. It is further stated that complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5 lacs or more as the said item/machine was very much useful for smooth running of his business. A legal notice dated 15.4.2009 was sent to OP but neither the same was replied nor said item was supplied by OP. Complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in the written statement took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute as it is not a consumer dispute and the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
It is further stated that present complaint is time barred as transaction took pale on 25.112005 and the present complaint was filed on 15.5.2009.
It is further stated that staff of OP went to the house of complainant several times but the complainant was not present at his house therefore OP could not deliver the camera to the complainant. OP never received the legal notice dated 15.4.2009 sent by complainant. Complainant is not a consumer within the provisions of Consumer protection Act 1986.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record and gone through the evidence of parties.
Complainant has specifically stated in para 4 of his complaint that the aforesaid camera was required for smooth running of his business and he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs because of not supplying of the camera.
In the written statement, OP took the plea that complaint is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to Section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which defines ‘consumer’ as under:-
“(d) ‘consumer’, means any person who –
- 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 party 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 resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- 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 hires or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
[Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.]”
It is evident from the definition of ‘consumer’ that the person who in indulging in commercial activity is not a ’consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However in view of explanation, if a person is doing business to earn his livelihood then he is a ‘consumer’. In this case, complainant nowhere pleaded in the entire complaint that he is doing the business to earn his livelihood. Since the aforesaid camera was required by the complainant for commercial purposes, complaint is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
