BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.342 of 2015

Date of Instt. 14.08.2015

Date of Decision :31.08.2015

Paramjit Singh Bhangu aged about 30 years son of Hardeep Singh Bhangu R/o Proprietor of Veerji Implement, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Bhatia Electric Co.Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

2. M/s Bhatia Electric Co., Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: None for the complainant.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased electricity wire from the opposite parties on 30.1.2015 amounting to Rs.38,528/- vide invoice No.1317. To the utter surprise of the complainant, when he came to know about the defective electric wire supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant and objection regarding the inferior quality of the wire supplied by the opposite parties was duly brought to the notice of the opposite parties by the complainant but the opposite parties never bothered to the request of the complainant. Due to the inferior quality of the wire, the equipment of work shop could not operated resultantly incentive of Rs.1,70,000/- could not be provided to the complainant by the company for which the complainant wanted to work. The wire supplied by the opposite parties being inferior quality and was not upto the standard and used and damaged wire was provided by the opposite parties intentionally and willfully, as a result of which the complainant sustained loss of business to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and also faced mental agony, harassment etc. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund him the cost of the goods i.e Rs.38525/- and further Rs.30,000/- as fitting charges. He has also claimed damaged and litigation expenses.

2. Today, the case was fixed for arguments on maintainability of the present complaint but none has come present on behalf of complainant. So instead of dismissing the complaint in default, we propose to dispose of it on merits. The complainant has filed the present complaint as Proprietor of Veerji Implement, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. From the contents of the complaint, it is clear that complainant purchased the wire for commercial purpose. In para 4 of the complaint, he has pleaded that due to the inferior quality of the wire, the equipment of work shop could not be operated and resultantly incentive of Rs.1,70,000/- could not be provided to him by the company for which the complainant wanted to work. Then in para 5 of the complaint, he has pleaded that he sustained loss of business to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. So all these averments clearly implies that complainant had purchased the wire for commercial purpose. Consequently, he can not be termed as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

3. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable. There is no order as to cost. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

31.08.2015 Member Member President