Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/123/2014

M/s Gurjot Electronics - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Moser Beer India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Mehta

17 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 123 of 2014

                                                                                    Date of institution: 25.02.2014          

                                                                                    Date of decision: 17.05.2017

 

M/s Gurjot Electronics, 1027, Sawanpuri, Jagadhri, Haryana through its proprietor Shri    Munish Chadha.

                        …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

 

1. M/s Moser Baer India Ltd. Having its Regd. Office at 43-B, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020, through its Partner/proprietor/MD/Authorized Signatory.
2. Jaydeep Kareer, Area Sales Manager, M/s Moser Baer India Ltd. Having its Regd. Office at 43-B, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020.
3. Vishal Dhar, (Sales Officer) of M/s Moser Baer India Ltd. Having its Regd. Office at 43-B, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020.                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                  …Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA…………………………. MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………    MEMBER

Present:           Shri  Gaurav Mehta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri G.S. Reen, Advocate for respondents

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                  The present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 has been filed by a firm M/s Gurjot Electronics (hereinafter referred as complainant firm) through its proprietor Munsih Chadha.

2.                  Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant firm, are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) is manufacturer of Moser Baer, TV, LCD, DVD Player and other electronics goods and the OP No.2 is the Area Sales Manager and the OP no.3 is the sales officer of the OP No.1. The OPs were desirous of selling their electronics products and for this purpose the OPs appointed the complainant Firm as Distributor and the complainant had to supply the products to the dealers for selling the same in Yamuna Nagar and Ambala Districts. The complainants stocked the products of the OPs Company mentioned above and had been paying the price of the same to the Ops. The complainant used to sell the products of the OP No.1 as per warranty of the goods given by the OP No.1. It has been further mentioned that the electronic goods were usually sent to the complainant through transport and at various times, while unloading the goods, the breakage of goods was found and the OP No.3 on several times clicked the photographs of the broken goods and sent the same to the OP No.1 and at the same time, he was assured that the Credit Note will be send to the complainant by the OP No.1 and they would take back the damage products but the OPs have not sent Credit Notes to the complainant despite of repeated requests made by the complainant, even the OPs have assured that the guarantee/warranty will start from the date of sale of electronics goods. When the goods were sold to the dealers and some defect occurred in the said goods, the customers started claiming the warranty /guarantee of the goods from the complainant firm but the OPs refused to entertain the complaints regarding guarantee/warrantee by stating that the guarantee/warrantee period has expired. It has been further mentioned that the OPs company have sent the Ice Model LCDs to the complainant without any order and when the complainant asked the OPs No.2 & 3 then the official of the OPs No.2 & 3 told to the complainant that they will assist the complainant in selling the LCDs. Accordingly, the officials of the OPs and complainant approached the dealers for selling the aforesaid LCDs at under value/discount price and when the complainant asked for credits notes, the OPs linger on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately  refused to issue the same. Even, thereafter the officials of the Ops filed a complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act in the Civil Courts at New Delhi against the complainant by misusing the security cheques with a view to pressurize the complainant to save their skin from the liability and lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to issue credit note worth Rs. 1,07,800/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as :- no relationship of consumer and supplier between the complainant and the OP exist; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action and on merit it has been admitted that the OP No.1 is manufacturer of Moser Baer, T.V. LCD, DVD Player and other electronics goods and the complainant was appointed as distributor for the sale of product of the OPs. The complainant firm was appointed as distributor, so it does not fall under the definition of consumer as per Consumer protection Act 1986 amended upto date. It has been further mentioned that whenever the complainant firm placed an order to the OPs Company, as per its requirement, the ops company sent the articles/goods to the complainant but the complainant had not paid the total sale consideration to the OPs company rather issued cheques in discharge of his outstanding liability, which was dishonoured and the Ops company had already initiated the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in this regard. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being manipulated and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite several opportunity and its evidence was closed by court order on dated 20.05.2016.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs also failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunity, So  the evidence of the ops is also hereby ordered by court order today i.e. on 17.05.2017.

6                      After hearing both the parties and going through the contents of the complaint as well as written statement, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as it is duly evident that the complainant firm is doing the business of selling the Moser Baer TV, LCD, DVD player and other electronics goods after purchasing the same from the OP No.1 firm to earn the profit. The complainant firm was working as Distributor of the OP No.1 meaning thereby that the transactions between the complainant firm and ops Company were of commercial nature and the same does not fall under the definition of consumer defined under section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act which is re-produced here as under:

“Consumer” means any person who-

1.  buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;       or
2. …………….

      [ Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment]”

7.                     The above noted definition and explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose which is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a firm i.e. corporate body and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood. Moreover it is not the case of the complainant that complainant is doing the business for his livelihood.

8                      Even on the other angle also, the complainant has totally failed to file any evidence in support of his complaint and to decided the such type cases elaborate evidenced is required  for which the civil court is best platform. 

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, neither the complaint of the complainant is maintainable nor have any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Appropriate Court/Authority, if so advised. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dt.  17.05 .2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     DCDRF, YAMUNANGAR.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                            (S.C.SHARMA)

   MEMBER                                                          MEMBER