DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 438
Instituted on: 04.09.2017
Decided on: 08.01.2018
Balvir Singh aged 62 years son of Shri Jarnail Singh resident of Village Shutrana, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Maa Laxmi Computer Main Road, Khanouri Mandi, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its Proprietor.
2. Aditya Infotech Limited, F-28, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 through its M.D.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: In person.
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.
FOR OPP. PARTY No.2 : Shri Rohit Sharma
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Balvir Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one CP Plus 8 Channel DVr ( Digital Vido Recorder) on 31.05.2017 for Rs.4200/- invoice number 212 under guarantee/ warranty of one year. After two months, said product has stopped working. The complainant approached OP no.1 who retained the said product with it. Later on, OP no.1 told the complainant that said product will be got repaired from Chandigarh and he has to pay Rs.2500/- for the repair of said product. The complainant requested the OP no.1 to replace the said product as the same was within guarantee period of one year but the OP no.1 flatly refused to do so and returned the same unrepaired/ replaced condition. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.4200/- being cost of CP Plus 8 Channel Dvr.
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OP no.1, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts have been taken up. It has been stated by the OP no.1 that the product in question was purchased for the purpose of installation in Karyana Store and as such commercial activity is involved in the matter and hence the matter in dispute does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. The purchase of said product is admitted. It has been stated that when the complainant brought the said product then upon opening the outer body cover of DVR as well as LED it was found that both were burnt . Even the 8 channel supply was also found burnt. The matter was brought in the notice of the service centre but they told that it is not covered under the warranty and repair will be carried on payment basis.
3. In reply filed by the OP no.2, it has been stated that the OP no.1 has not provided the specific detail of such service centre which he has been approached to; and moreover none of the service centres of OP no.2 has ever received any complaint from the complainant or OP no.1. Thus, it is evident from the set forth facts that complainant had falsely represented the facts. It has been further stated that OP no.2 is duty bound to repair the defaulted products and would rectify the errors if any, subject to the warranty terms and conditions as may be notified by the manufacturer or service provider, if the product is in warranty period. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2.
4. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to OP1/4 and Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that OP no.1 has taken a specific objection that the product in question was purchased by the complainant for the purpose of installation at Karyana Store and as such commercial activity is involved in the matter, hence the matter in dispute does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act and complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
6. The complainant himself has produced on record original retail invoice number 212 dated 31.05.2017 for an amount of Rs.19,300/- which is Ex.C-2 on record. From the perusal of it we find that it is in the name of Waraich Karyana Store Village Shutrana meaning thereby the CP Plus 8 Channel Dvr in question was purchased by the complainant to install in his Waraich Karyana Store, Village Shutrana which, no doubt, is a commercial activity. It is settled law that matter in which commercial activity involved does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the commercial activity is involved the present complaint. So, the matter in dispute does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed however he is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
January 8 , 2018
(Sarita Garg) ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
