In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 487/2009.

1)                   Sri Arun Kumar Saraf ,

238B, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road,

Kolkata-20, P.S. Bhowanipore.                                                           ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   M/s. Sagar Finstocks Pvt. Ltd.

42, Gariahat Road, Kolkarta-29.

2)       M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Manuja Towers (Gr. Floor),

32, Hazra Road, Kolkata-29.

3)       M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Unit : Legal Department,

A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

Mathura Road,  New Delhi-110044.                                             ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

Order No.   33    Dated  20-12-2012.

Sharmi Basu, Member.

            The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Sri Arun Kumar Saraf against the o.ps. M/s. Sagar Finstocks Pvt. Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a Sony laptop computer from o.p. no.1 on 7.1.08 for the purpose of his profession. The laptop was covered with warranty for a total period of 3 years from the date of purchase, being 1 year’s original warranty and 2 years’ extended warranty. O.p. no.1 is the authorized dealer of o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.3 is the manufacturer.

            As per the complainant, within warranty period some defects cropped up in the laptop causing problem to the complainant, but it was not replaced or price was not refunded to the complainant by the o.ps. after his repeated requests. Hence the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his dispute and he has prayed for relief.

            All the o.ps. had appeared and interalia ld. counsel for o.ps. has submitted that the complainant purchased the goods in question for commercial purpose and there is no iota of evidence that he purchased the said laptop for his livelihood.

            After scrutinizing every nook and corner of he petition of complaint, evidence and BNA it appears to us that at para 1 of the complaint petition it is mentioned that complainant is a Chartered Accountant and his is dealing with Income Tax of good number of cases and it has been admitted at petition of complaint, evidence and at BNA that the complainant purchased the laptop for his profession. Moreover, there is no averment anywhere in the record of the instant case that the complainant used the computer in question for earning his livelihood and no scrap of paper has been on record to establish the same.  

            Hence, we are of the opinion that goods in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and as per definition of ‘consumer’ within the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986 the complainant of the instant case is not a ‘consumer’ and this forum has no jurisdiction to give relief to the complainant.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case of the complainant is dismissed for want of jurisdiction against all the o.ps. on contest without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.