CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.335/2012

M/S CRAFTSMEN,

HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT:

33B, SAID-UL-AJAIB,

M.B. ROAD, OPPOSITE SAKET D-BLOCK,

NEW DELHI-110030

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

FACTORY AT:-

PLOT NO.60, SECTOR-6, IIE SIDCUL

PANTNAGAR DISTT. UDHAM SINGH NAGAR,

UTTRAKHAND

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                   

Vs.

M/S SSR POWER CONTROLS SYSTEMS,

U-17, PUL PRAHLADPUR, M.B. ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110044

TRHOUGH ITS PARTNER/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

NEW ADDRESS:

PLOT NO.113, SHIV DURGA VIHAR,

SURAJ KUND ROAD,

LAKKARPUR RAILWAY CROSSING,

FARIDABAD, HARYANA

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                 Date of Order: 26.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

The complainant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of fitting, fixtures, furniture and other interior works.  The case of the complainant is that it purchased a UPS from the OP for a sum of Rs.1,98,900/- on 18.5.2011.  It is stated that since the purchase of the said UPS, complainant is facing a lot of difficulty because it seems there are some inherent technical manufacturing defects in the UPS.  The complainant approached the OP and informed about the aforesaid difficulties but the OP did not take it seriously and avoided the same on one pretext or the other.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- vide cheque dated 06.03.2012 for cost of spare parts on the assurance of the OP for repair of UPS but the OP still failed to do the same. 

It is further stated that OP has cheated the complainant not only from monetary angle but also played with the complainant’s business and reputation.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,98,900/- or replace the said defective UPS alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay Rs.5 lakhs for compensation and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation.

OP was proceed ex parte on 19.11.2014.

We have heard the complainant and carefully perused the record.

The only point for consideration is that whether complainant is a consumer.  Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986  defines ‘consumer’ as under:-

“(d) ‘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 party 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 resale or for approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. 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 or avails of the service for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid or party promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.

[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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.]”

Admittedly the complainant is a partnership firm who is engaged in business and the product in question has been used for commercial purpose.  The complainant has specifically stated in para 13 of the complaint that complainant also made a complaint to the police wherein he has specifically stated that the firm suffered huge production loss due to the non functional of the UPS.  Hence complainant is not a consumer.

In view of the above the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

(D.R. TAMTA)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT