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.241/2013
M/S KS2 COMPUTERS AND TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MRS LELAMONY SUKUMARAN
ADDRESS
803A, DEVIKA TOWER,
6, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………. Complainant
Vs.
1. MR. KABIR,
PROPRIETOR, COMPUTER POINT(COMPU POINT)
ADDRESS:
101A, MEGHDOOT BUILDING,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
- MR. ALAM
EMPLOYEE OF COMPUTER POINT(COMPU POINT)
ADDRESS:
101A, MEGHDOOT BUILDING,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..Respondents
Date of Order:05.06.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that it is a private limited company and had purchased a new computer system detailed in para-7 of the complaint for a sum of Rs.17130/- on 05.6.2012. According to the complainant, the computer system started giving trouble on the very first day and when engineer of the complainant inspected the computer system, it was noticed that OP has sold old non working processor by convincing it to be new one. The complainant approached OP-2, an employee of OP-1 to get the CPU(Processor) i.e. Intel Core 2 Duo 1800 Processor replaced however OP-2 misbehaved with complainant. After long argument, OP-2 agreed to replace the CPU(Processor) and issued the receipt wherein wrongly mentioned the details of the CPU to be replaced. When complainant went to the office of OP-1 to collect the replaced CPU, OP-2 shouted at the complainant and told that the processor will not be replaced. Despite legal notice, the needful has not been done. It is stated by the complainant that it a clear cut deficiency in service.
Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.3,690/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 06.9.2012 towards cost of the CPU(Processor), Rs.15,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- towards legal expenses.
OP was proceeded ex parte. Main point for consideration is whether complainant is a consumer. Admittedly complainant is a private limited company meaning thereby that software has been purchased by a Pvt. Ltd Company and not by any individual. It is useful to refer to case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rance Computers Pvt. Ltd. 1(2014) CPJ 332(NC) where in para-5, it was held that software has been purchased by a private limited company and not by any individual. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Managing Director is the owner of petitioner company and he was carrying on business for earning his livelihood hence complainant falls within the purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. This argument is devoid of force because nowhere in the complaint it has been pleaded that Managing Director is running business in the name of complainant for earning his livelihood and in such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Managing Director was running business for earning his livelihood. As software was purchased by a limited company for commercial purposes, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Birla Technologies Ltd. v. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd 2011(1) SCC 525.
In view of the above judgment, the complaint stands 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
