This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that OP1 is the agent of authorized service centre of the OP2 who is electronics goods manufacturer company and maker of different types of electronic gadgets like Mobile Phone, Laptop, Tablet etc.

          Fact remains being interested to purchase a Tablet, on 18-04-2013 complainant purchased a Tablet namely MicromaxFunbook Infinity(Tablet) vide model No.P-275 having its product ID No.26003B0006C0147 from Metro Cash & Carry situated at E M Bypass, Jadavpur, Kolkata – 99.

          Complainant being an Add On card holder in respect of the firm namely Jutex Enterprises in the Metro Cash & Carry allowed to purchase the said Tablet through the said Add On Card and the said purchase was in the name of Jutex Enterprises and the card is in the name of the complainant but the said Funbook(Tablet) had a warranty for one year and to that effect the warranty of the said Funbook ends on 17-04-2014.  On 09-11-2013 the complainant went to the OP1 for repair of the said funbook and the OP1 took the said Funbook against proper receipt and on receipt of the said Funbook the OP1 took huge time and ultimately on 29-01-2014 returned to complainant a different Funbook Tablet having new product ID No.6389443446CP85 and on query the OP1 told the complainant that the said Tablet which was purchased by the complainant detected a non-reparable fault, so replaced the original with another new one to the complainant by the OP2 and considering such conduct of the OP1 complainant expressed his doubt to the personnel of the OP1 regarding the new set and as it was looking like an old one though the said personnel assured the complainant about the said new Funbook and complainant accordingly took the same.

          After taking the said so called new Tablet complainant started using the same and again the said set became found faulty and complainant again took the set to the OP on 08-04-2014 where the office personnel of the OP1 told the complainant to wait for some time so that they could repair the said Tablet with an application for extension of warranty period of the said new Tablet and also to incorporate the new product ID of the said new Tablet in the purchase bill of the complainant.  Thereafter, complainant waited at the office of the OP1 for about 40 minutes and the said office personnel told the complainant that they had to keep the said Tablet with them and they cannot issue internet generated receipt to the complainant due to internet problem and issued a manual note to the complainant and after receipt of the Tablet on 08-04-2014 the office personnel of the OP1 on 10-04-2014 told the complainant to his mobile phone that they have prepared the job sheet for the said Tablet and also told the no. of the job sheet as 0414-9073484.  Thereafter, on 17-04-2014 in the afternoon one of the office personnel called the complainant in the service centre by saying that the said Tablet has been repaired and the complainant may take it back from the Service Centre.  Accordingly, the complainant went to the office of the OP1 and surprisingly found that they were returning the said Tablet by saying that they found the LCD of the said set was broken and they cannot repair as per warranty clause when the complainant told the personnel of the OP1 that when they found the LCD was broken then why they did not tell the complainant on 08-04-2014, when the complainant deposited the same and waited for 40 minutes and why did they waited till 18-04-2014 and whey they told the complainant to his mobile phone on 17-04-2014 to come to their office for collecting the said Tablet as the same was repaired by them.

          On 18-04-2014 complainant was called to the service centre of the OP1 to take his said tablet being repaired but when on 18-04-2014 they wanted to return the said tablet without repair as the LCD of the said tablet was broken, then complainant was satisfied that the OPs adopted an unfair trade practice.  Thereafter, complainant reported the matter to their authority about the whole fact but they did not give any proper justice or redressal on the ground the LCD was broken due to mishandling by the complainant is completely false which is evident from the job sheet No. 0414-9073484.

          Fact remains OP2 being the manufacturer of the said Tablet cannot avoid its responsibility of the acts done by its agent and, therefore, responsible for the grievances of the complainant and therefore, OP3 also cannot ignore its liability from selling such product where after sales service is so harassive and deficient but complainant being a valued consumer had not get proper service from the said OPs and OP failed and neglected to provide service to the complainant and OP1 after receiving the set fully tried to put the responsibility upon the shoulder of the complainant which is not ethical but tantamounts to unfair trade practice and in the above circumstances, complainant has appeared before this Forum for proper justice and relief.

          On the other hand after service of the notices to all the parties only OP3 appeared and submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the OP3 is operating wholesale cash and carry stores/distribution centre in major towns of India and caters exclusively to its business to registered customers only.

          It is also submitted that in order to become a member, all business entities/commercial establishments should register with the OP by submitting copies of valid business licenses and by filling a customer registration form after accepting the terms and conditions.

          Further as per condition of registration with the OP3 the condition is as follows : “Metro Sells goods to the customer on the condition that they are for resale, commercial, business or industrial use only.  The customer agrees not to purchase goods at Metro Distribution Centre for personal consumption.  Purchases are not allowed by persons as private individuals for personal use”.  So, it is clear that OP does not sell products to the consumer but the registered business customers are purchasing the products for resale, commercial, business or industrial use only and no purchases are allowed for private individuals for private use and OP has issued the card referred in the complaint to Jutex Enterprises. On a careful perusal of the complaint it will reveal that Tapas Mukhopadhyay has not disclosed that he is the authorized representative of Jutex Enterprises and neither the complaint is filed by the Jutex Enterprises in this capacity.  The complaint is signed and verified by Mr. Tapas Mukhopadhyayh in his individual capacity, on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further all allegations and in view of the fact complainant is not a consumer for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On an indepth study of the complaint including written version and also Metro Card issued by the OPs it is found that Metro Card was issued to Tapas Mukhopadhyay, Jutex Enterprises and in the said card it is specifically mentioned that metro terms and condition as amended time to time as it is restricted to the card holder and for business purpose only.  Further from the complaint in Para 4 complainant has admitted that Add On Card holder is the Jutex Enterprises in the Metro Cash and Carry and allowed to purchase the article and the said purchase was in the name of Jutex Enterprises but card is not in the name of the complainant.  So, considering all the above facts including the materials and the admission of the OP it is clear that the Tablet in question was purchased by the Jutex Enterprises and no doubt Tapas Mukhopadhyay is the proprietor or owner or director of the Jutex Enterprises.  Sale was not made to Tapas Mukhopadhyay but to Jutex Enterprises for which complainant has failed to produce any receipt to show that the Tablet in dispute was purchased personally by Tapas Mukhopadhyay from the OP3 and it is also found that OP3 has no legal right to sell any article to domestic customers but his permission to sale articles to Companies, Factories, Industrial Unit or Business for resale.  So, considering that fact it is clear that present complainant has failed to produce any document to show that he himself purchased the said Tablet for his personal use but on the contrary it is proved that complainant is nothing but the director, proprietor or owner of Jutex Enterprises and Jutex Enterprises is the card holder of the Metro Cash and Carry and as card holder he received such Tablet but no way present complainant can claim that he purchased the same and this purchase was not for any domestic purpose or personal use but it was purchased from the OP3 for resale.  So, considering that fact it is clear that present complainant Tapas Mukhopadhyay has no legal right to file this case when he purchased said disputed Tablet from the OP-3 not for personal use and domestic reason as a domestic purchaser but the complaint itself proves that it was purchased by Jutex Enterprises from OP3 for resale.  So, it is proved that complainant is not a consumer under the OP and this complaint was not filed by Jutex Enterprises and fact remains no receipt is produced by the complainant to show that he purchased the same.  So, in the above circumstances, we are convinced to hold that present complainant is not a consumer of Metro Micromax Informatics Ltd. but apparently it is found that purchaser is Jutex Enterprises on the basis of Metro Cash & Carry,3 India Card and Jutex Enterprises as a card holder is getting huge number of items for resale and practically OP3 is the distributor and Jutex Enterprises is a seller of different type of scientific and technological electronic goods.

          In the result, we are convinced to hold that present complaint fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the OPs.