DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 401/2018
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
AMIT AGARWAL,
DIRECTOR OF CALPRO FOOD ESSENTIALS PVT. LTD.,
A-5, NARAINA INDL. AREA,
PH-II, NEW DELHI-110028. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. IT COMNET TECHNOLOGY,
W.P. 477/106, 1ST FLOOR,
SHIV MARKET, ASHOK VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110052.
2. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,
12TH FLOOR, AMBIENCE TOWER,
AMBIENCE ISLAND, NH-8,
GURGAON-122002. (HARYANA).…OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 12.06.2018
Date of Decision: 04.07.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the
CC No. 401/2018 Page 1 of 4
complainant purchased an EPBAX system model no. KS300SX from OP-1 on 12.06.2017 against invoice no. ITCT/RT/0014/2017-18 dated 12.06.2017 for effective livelihood and routine functioning of their office and since March-2018 they have been some problems in the EPBAX which was resulting in chaos leading to confusion in office loss of business and reputation. The complainant immediately contacted OP-1 for rectification of the problem but OP-1 refused to give any support though the product was under warrantee. The complainant again complaint to customer care of OP-2 on 08.04.2018 and the call was attended by Mr. Zahid who refused to provide any service in absence of warrantee card though the EPBAX Sr. No. was mentioned in the invoice of the supplier and the product is under warrantee till 18.06.2018. A notice dated 21.04.2018 was sent to OP-2 through Regd. Post to provide technical supports but there is no reply and as such this act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. We have heard the Authorized Representative of the complainant on the admissibility of the case and have considered the case of the complainant.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is “whether or not the complainant is a consumer” as envisaged u/s 2
CC No. 401/2018 Page 2 of 4
(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and “whether the complaint is maintainable”.
4. In order to find answer to this question it would be useful to consider Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986, which defines the term “Consumer”. On reading the said Section it is clear that Consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires or avail of service for consideration. There is an exception to the explanation by providing that if the person hires or avails service for consideration for commercial purpose, he would not be termed as “Consumer”.
5. We are not convinced with the submissions of the authorized representative of the complainant. The pleadings clearly shows that EPBAX system was purchased by the complainant from OP-1 which was to be used in the office of the complainant. In para 2 of the complaint, it is written as under:
“Since March-2018, some problems have been observed I the EPBAX. This was resulting in chaos and leading to confusion in office loss of business and reputation.”
6. The above admission of fact by the complainant clearly shows that the EPBAX system was purchased for running in the office of the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not covered under the definition of the word “Consumer”. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
CC No. 401/2018 Page 3 of 4
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4th day of July, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 401/2018 Page 4 of 4
