DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 214/2014
Date of Institution : 13.10.2014
Date of Decision : 23.02.2015
In the matter of:
Vandana wife of Sanjeev Kumar resident of H. No. 26, Guru Gobind Marg, Backside Division No. 2, Patiala.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Flat No. 12D4, 12th Floor, Kailash Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director.
…Opposite Party
Application for rejection of complaint
Before:-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. RK Singla Advocate
For opposite party : Sh. Vinod Goel Advocate
ORDER: BY SH. SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
The present order of ours will dispose off an application moved by the opposite party for the rejection of the complaint. It is submitted in the application that, present complaint has been filed by the complainant for the refund of alleged security consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- amongst other reliefs.
It is further submitted that, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that, a consumer is either a person who buys any goods for consideration or hires or avails of any services for a consideration whereas in the present case, complainant has neither bought any goods nor hired or availed any services from the opposite party, so the question of payment of consideration does not arise.
It is further submitted in the application that, in the present case the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is purely commercial in nature due to commercial contract entered between the complainant and the opposite party, so the complainant is not a consumer at all. Further, complainant was running a care centre for the sole objective of earning profit, which fact is admitted by her in her complaint. Further, complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts. So, the opposite party prayed in its application that, the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with cost.
2. On the other hand, in reply to the application, the complainant strongly opposed the application by taking legal objections that, the present application is not maintainable, as the opposite party has already taken the objection, that dealing between the parties were commercial, which can be decided at the time of final arguments. Moreover, the application has been filed by the opposite party after the evidence of complainant to delay the proceedings.
On merits, it is submitted by the complainant in her reply that, she was running a service centre, as authorized service centre of the opposite party to earn her livelihood through self employment. The complainant was neither selling anything after taking the same from the opposite party. So, the application of the opposite party may kindly be dismissed with cost.
3. We have minutely perused the application, reply to the application, complaint and also heard both the counsel for parties at length.
4. It is an admitted fact that, complainant was running an authorized Nokia Care Centre of the opposite party at Barnala. It is also admitted fact that, the complainant deposited some amount as security for the service centre of the opposite party at Barnala. It is also admitted fact that, the service centre of the complainant was terminated by the opposite party on 30.7.2012.
The main objection of the opposite party in its application and even in its version that, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party, so her complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Forum, Barnala.
The “consumer” is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as under.-
(d) “consumer” means any person who.-
(i) 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
(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires of avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person;
In our view, in the present case, complainant has not purchased any goods for a consideration, from the opposite party nor she hires or avails any services for a consideration. Further, she is also not a beneficiary of any person, who hires or avails any services for a consideration from the opposite party. The complainant has failed to produce any document to prove the above mentioned fact.
Further, the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party is purely commercial in nature, as this is simply a matter of returning the security amount, which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party for taking the agency/service centre of the opposite party at Barnala.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that, she is a “consumer” of the opposite party as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. So, the application of the opposite party for rejecting the complaint of the complainant is allowed. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed being not maintainable. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court for the redressal of her grievance, if she desires so. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of February 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
