Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/845

RAKESH KWATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE WEB WORLD - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                 Date of institution                 :23.11.12

 

Case. No.845/12                                                                                                Date of order                     :28.9.16

In the matter of :-

Rakesh Kwatra

B121-The Summit,DLF Phase5,

Golf Course Road, Sector 54,

Gurgaon 122011                                                               COMPLAINANT

 

Vs.

The manager

Reliance Web World

Reliance Communications Ltd.,

1/2, East Patel Nagar, Below Metro Station Patel Nagar

New Delhi-110008                                                                                   OP-1

 

The Chairman –Mr.Anil Ambani

Reliance Communications Ltd.

 H Block Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowloege City,

Thane, Belapur Road,

Koperkhaime,

Navi Mumbai 400710                                                                   OP-2

 

                                                (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

            Briefly the case of complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset on 5.3.10 vide  Bill No.030147859 for sale consideration of Rs.27990/-.   One day complainant took the mobile handset to Opposite Party-1 for activation of handset and mapping.   But the mobile handset fell from Gaurv, Manager of Opposite Party-1 and damaged. The complainant asked the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.27990/- cost of the mobile handset and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, Rs.15,000/- for convenyance charges, Rs.15,000/- on account of logistics and Rs.20,000/- litigation expenses.   But The Opposite

2

Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint. 

 

            After notice Opposite Parties appeared and filed joint reply while contesting the complaint and asserted that Opposite Parties did not provide any service to the complainant ,  therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and as per terms and condition of warranty the Opposite Parties, are not liable to compensate the complainant for any damage or breakage in handling the mobile handset and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

The complainant did not file rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Parties.  The parties were  asked to file evidence by way of affidavit.  The complainant filed affidavit dated 9.12.13 wherein he once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint  and controverted  the stand taken by the Opposite Parties in their reply.  The Opposite Parties filed affidavit of Ashish Bandhari  dated 21.4.14,  wherein he   once again reiterated their stand taken in the reply  that they have not provided any service to the complainant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties  and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

            We have heard the complainant and counsel for Opposite Parties and have gone through the relevant material on record.   Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to reproduce warranty clause of the mobie handset provided in the invoice dated 5.3.10 which runs as under:

“Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged. All risk due to any damage or breakage on handing in transit to buyer.”

 

3

            It is also worthwhile to reproduce Section 2(d) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act which runs as under:

Section 2(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 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
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 ³[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment , when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person ⁴[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

Section 2(o) “service”  means service of any description which is made available to potential  ³[ users and includes, but limited to, the provisions of ] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical and another energy,board or lodging or both, ⁴[housing construction,] entertainment,amusement or purveying of news or other information,but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under the contract of personal service;

    The complainant did not pay any amount or consideration to the Opposite Parties for activation and mapping, therefore, in view of the above warranty clause and provisions of section 2(d) and (o)of the  CPA, the complainant is not a consumer and the Opposite Parties are not service providers.

  Therefore, complaint is not  maintainable.    Resultantly,  the complaint is dismissed. 

4

Order pronounced on :28.09.2016

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                          (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

 

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT