IN THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL   FORUM   

                                                    SONITPUR  AT  TEZPUR

District:                    Sonitpur  

Present:                    Smti A. Devee

                                      President,

District Consumer D.R Forum,

Sonitpur, Tezpur

Sri  P.Das

Member

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal  Forum, Sonitpur

Smti S.Bora

Member

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum,Sonitpur

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.23/2017

1.Sri Rajiv Kr Gupta                                                                                     :          Complainants

S/o Late Shyam Babu Pd. Gupta

        Resident of Vill: Hatipil Khana Hola

        P.O & P.S: Tezpur

        Dist: Sonitpur,Assam

Vs.                      

1.M/s Lenovo(India)Pvt.Ltd.                                                     :             Opp. party

   Represented by its Legal Manager

   Ferns Icon, Level-2 Doddenakund Village

   Marathachali outer Ring Road, K.R Puram, Hobli

   Bangalore-560037

2.M/s Lenovo Service Centre

(Guwahati Centre) Sri Kangan Kr Sarma

Link Telecom(P)Ltd.

Bora Arcade,4^th Floor Ulubari, Lachit Nagar

Guwahati-07 Kamrup(M)Assam

      3.M/s Complete Solution

      A.G Plaza, 1^st Floor G.S Road

        P.O: Christanbasti,Guwahati-781005

        Kamrup(M)Assam

         Appearance:

Mr.Rajib Boruah,Adv.                                                                      :               For Complainant

        None                                                                                                   :               For Opp. party No.1,2 &3

 Date of argument heard                                                                                 :               15-05-18

   Date of Judgment                                                                                              :               28-05-18

JUDGMENT (23/2017)

1. The facts leading to the complaint, in brief, are that Complainant is a businessman and owner of his commercial establishment under the name and style ‘Rajib Communication’. On 02-01-2017 he had purchased 9(nine) nos of Lenovo brand mobile handset from the opp. party No.3 at Rs.92,531.51 paise.On finding one of the handsets defective, the Complainant approached the opp. party No.3 and on advice, approached the servicing centre opp. party No.2. The opp. party No.2 after retaining the handset for a couple of days returned the handset without repair on ground of the LCD being dent and servicing of which is not covered under warranty.The matter was pursued by the Complainant but the opposite parties turned down the same on the plea that the repair does not come under warranty cover and that repair of the same shall come with charges. Alleging that the opposite parties were deficient in service and adopted unfair trade practice, the Complainant is thus before the Forum praying compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @18% p.a for harassment, mental distress, pain,agony blockade of fund, financial loss and disrepute.
2. Initially complaint was lodged against the present opposite party Nos 1 & 2 and “M/s Computer Solution as vendor/opposite party No.3. But from the available document, we came to know that handset was purchased from “M/s Complete Solution”. So, vide order dtd 11-12-17 the Complainant was asked to do the needful by taking proper step. Accordingly, complaint was amended by introducing “M/s Complete Solution” as opposite party No.3. Notice was again  issued and served upon the opposite parties.None of the opposite parties came forward to contest the case despite notices being duly served upon them and the case proceeded exparte against them.Complainant tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting some documents thereunder. To clarify on certain points, the Complainant was examined by the Forum.

            We have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the written argument filed by the Complainant.

3.                                             POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(i)Whether Complainant is a “Consumer” as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the  

      Consumer  Protection Act ?

(ii)Whether Complainant is entitled to get any relief ?

     DECISION ON THE POINTS:

4. Learned counsel Sri R.Boruah for the Complainant vehemently submitted that the Parliament wanted to exclude from the scope and definition of “Consumer”any person who buys goods for the purpose of their being used in any activity engaged on a large scale for the purpose of making profit .The Complainant had purchased nine nos of mobile handsets for resale but resale was not for earning profit.According to him nine nos of handsets also cannot be understood as large scale. Since the Complainant used to resale mobile handset for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment he is protected under explanation clause of Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. A bare perusal of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, clearly shows that if any goods are purchased for consideration either for resale or for any commercial purchase, the purchaser is excluded from the purview of definition of “Consumer”.
6. Admittedly, the Complainant is a businessman and dealing with sale of Mobile and Computer under the name and style of “Rajib Communication”. A person who buys goods for resale has been separately and specifically mentioned and exluded from the scope and expression “Consumer”. The legislature has specifically given explanation to- what is “Commercial Purpose”. But resale does not find its place in the said explanation.
7. In sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d) the word “resale” is separated from the words for any “Commercial Pupose” by one “or”. As such explanation to section 2(1)(d) must be understood as covering cases other than those of resale of the goods. For the purpose of resale, we have to go by the plain dictionary meaning of the word. Resale means a “Second Sale”.
8. On a simple scrutiny of the materials before us, more particularly the answers  given by the Complainant to the questions put by the Forum,we have found that the Complainant had purchased the nine numbers of mobile handset including the one involved in this case for resale.What have been contended by Mr Boruah, in our opinion, is not at all acceptable.
9. In view of such evidence of the Complainant and discussions made, he is not a “Consumer” u/s 2(1)(d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act as he had purchased the handsets not for self use, but for resale.
10. Since the Complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, he is not entitled to get any relief under the complaint.

                                                                        O R D E R

            Consequently the complaint fails and stands dismissed.

Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 28th day of May, 2018.

Dictated and corrected by:                                                      Pronounced and delivered

             ( A.Devee)

President                                                                                                           (A. DEVEE)

District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur                                                                President

Tezpur                                                              District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum                                                                                                                 Sonitpur,Tezpur

I  agree:-          (SMT.S.BORA)                                             

                                 Member