DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

   CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 378/2018

No. __________________    Dated : ____________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAVINDER KUMAR PARCHA,

S/o SH. OM PRAKASH PARCHA,

R/o E-16/134-135, 2^ND FLOOR, SEC-8,

ROHINI, DELHI-110085.                                        …COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. MOBILE MASTER,

H-2/43, SECTOR-16,ROHINI, DELHI-110089.

2. SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,

6^TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE,

SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.…OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)

CORAM:  SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT     

               SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER

          MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER                   

                    Date of Institution: 05.06.2018

                       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 complainant requested his neighbor Sh. Sandeep Kumar Jain who belongs to the mobile industry for purchasing a mobile phone. Mr. Sandeep Jain informed the complainant that he knows OP-1 who can give a Samsung mobile on a good rate. On the same date i.e. 25.05.2018, the complainant requested to Sh. Sandeep Jain to buy

CC No. 378/2018                                                                           Page 1 of 4

          a Samsung C-7 Pro Mobile handset on his behalf as he was having urgent work at home. Mr. Sandeep went to OP-1 and purchased the mobile handset at Rs.22,400/- and brought one sealed pack mobile handset to the residence of the complainant. On opening the sealed pack, the complainant tried to turn the mobile on but the mobile could not be turned on and thereafter the charger was connected with the mobile handset and mobile was charged. After charging for about 20 minutes, the complainant took out the mobile handset from charging and inserted his Sim card in the mobile handset and tried to turn the mobile handset on but the mobile handset had no display though the voice instructions were coming from the phone. The complainant immediately contacted Mr. Sandeep Kumar and on his advice the complainant immediately went to Samsung Dealer who assured the complainant that he will get the mobile handset checked and will get the same replaced with a new phone. On 26.05.2018, the Samsung dealer alongwith Sh. Sandeep Jain went to Samsung Service Center at Sec-7, Rohini and after checking the mobile phone the officials of the Service Center refused to help and started blaming Mr. Sandeep Kumar that the mobile phone has been compressed and refused to help. Mr. Sandeep Kumar narrated the whole events to the complainant who on the same date went to Samsung Service Center and met the manager who informed that

CC No. 378/2018                                                                           Page 2 of 4

          the phone can be repaired and demanded Rs.6,000/- as repaircharges by saying that the screen of the mobile phone has been compressed. Then the complainant contacted the area manager but he refused to provide any help to the complainant. Thereupon the complainant approached Police Station Rohini, Sec-7 and lodged the complaint vide DD no. 30-B dated 26.05.2018 and the police also refused to provide any help to the complainant.

2.       On these allegations, the complainant has filed the complaint seeking directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.22,400/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase the mobile handset and has also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental & physical agony and has also sought litigation cost.

3.       We have heard the complainant on the admissibility of the case and have considered the case of the complainant.

4.       The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is “whether or not the complainant is a consumer” as envisaged u/s 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and “whether the complaint is maintainable”.

5.       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

CC No. 378/2018                                                                           Page 3 of 4

          by providing that if the person hires or avails service for consideration for commercial purpose, he would not be termed as “Consumer”.

6.       We are not convinced with the submissions of the complainant. Alongwith the complaint the complainant has placed on record copy of invoice as well as copy of job sheet which are in the name of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Jain and are not in the name of the complainant. It clearly shows that the complainant is not a consumer and is not covered within the definition of “Consumer” as per Section 2 (1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986. 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.

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 4^th day of July, 2018.

BARIQ AHMAD     USHA KHANNA     M.K.GUPTA

(MEMBER) (MENBER)            (PRESIDENT)

CC No. 378/2018                                                                           Page 4 of 4