Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Pradip Kumar Deb as complainant filed application U/s 35 of Consumer protection Act, 2019 stating that he is a Mobile shopkeeper and retailer, resident of village Pabna Colony, Post & police Station-Kaliyaganj, District- Uttar Dinajpur placed order to the Ghosh Online Solution situated at N.S.Road, P.O & P.S-Kaliyaganj, Dist-Uttar Dinajpur for delivery of some mobile phones amounting to Rs.3,60,000/- (Three Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only). That the complainant transferred Rs. Rs.3,60,000/- (Three Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only) to the account number 50200045781899 of H.D.F.C Bank, Kaliyagnj Branch of O.P through NEFT from Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank Account Number of the complainant being 5268210000277. The complainant pleads before the Commission that inspite of receiving Rs.3,60,000/- (Three Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only) as the price of mobile phones the O.P neither delivered the mobile phones nor refund the amount to the complainant till date. He also states that as a result of the actions of the O.P the complainant suffered huge financial loss, mental pain and agony and as such he lodged this claim for getting refund of Rs.3,60,000/-(Three Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) with interest, Rs.2,00,000/-(Two Lakh Only) as compensation for harassment and mental agony from the O.P and Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh Only) as litigation cost.

Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and perused the xerox copies of the documents filed. It is apparent from the submission of the petitioner and the papers submitted that Sri. Pradip Kumar Deb Proprietor of Unique Mobile service Centre resident of village Pabna Colony, Post and Police Station-Kaliyaganj, District-Uttar Dinajpur is a mobile shopkeeper and retailer. He used to sale and resale mobiles after collecting it or purchasing it from other sources. He is not a consumer as defined Section 2 (7) (i) given below in (a) Explanation. Explanation (a) clearly states that “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.

In this case it is clear that Pradip Kumar Deb the complainant is not using the goods exclusively for earning his livelihood, rather he re-sales the goods in question.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the application U/s 35 of Consumer protection Act, 2019 registered as C.C-34/2022 be and the same is rejected.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.