Haryana

Jind

CC/15/122

Ravi Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shopclues .Com Op1 And Technix Elect. Pvt Ltd. Op2 And Authorized Service Center Samsung Mobile Neh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Neeraj Miglani

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 138 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 30.9.2015
   Date of final order: 24.8.2016

Ravi Sachdeva care of Non stop Mobile near old bus stand Jind, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Shopclues.Com through Clues Network Pvt. Ltd. plot No.653-A Palam Vihar near Delhi through its authorized signatory.
Technix Electronix Pvt. Ltd B-1, E-22, MCIE New Delhi thorugh its Propreitor.
Authorized Service Centre Samsung Mobile, Neha Communication near Saini Ramlila ground, old subji mandi road, Jind through its authorized signatory.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Neeraj Miglani Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties  already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased on line  two mobiles Samsung Galaxy for a sum of Rs.17,798/- vide invoice No.SC/7181 dated 4.8.2015 issued by opposite party No.2.  There was warranty of 6 months of the above said mobiles on website but the said mobiles were shown to service centre of opposite parties it was disclosed that there was warranty of 
            Ravi Sachdeva Vs. Shopclues etc.
                        …2…
only 3 months. Even from the packing box of these mobiles it appears that the said mobiles were old might have not been sold timely and there was no warranty of 6 months. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested to change the mobiles  with mobiles having warranty of 6 months or to extend the warranty of these mobiles but the opposite parties have denied to do so. The complainant served a legal notice dated 3.9.2015 upon the opposite parties but all in vain. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund  the price of  mobiles i.e. Rs.17,798/- along with interest @18% p.a.,  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    The opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte  vide order of this Forum dated 17.12.2015, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 22.3.2016 and opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 21.6.2016. 
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copies of postal receipt Annexure C-2, copies of bill Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4 and copy of legal notice dated 2.9.2015 Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the argument of Ld. counsel of  complainant and  also perused the record placed on file. We have gone through the invoice there is no specified warranty period of the above said 
            Ravi Sachdeva Vs. Shopclues etc.
                        …3…
mobiles. How we can presume that any of six months or three months or said mobiles were old might has not been sold timely or not? So the warranty can not be extended without evidence. Another question involved in this case whether the complainant has purchased the mobiles in question for re-sale or not? We have gone through the title of the complaint that complainant is running a shop in the name of Ravi Sachdeva C/o Non Stop Mobile. We have also gone through the copy of notice Ex. C-5 he has given the version in para No.2 of the notice  which  reads as under:-
“On web site of you addressee No.1 seen your offer of purchasing so complainant contacted with you and vide order No.64215719 asked for two mobiles for his shop and vide invoice No.SC/7181 issued by you address No.2 you sent the said two mobiles make Samsung Galaxy grand prime IMEI Nos 356554065647188 and 356554064075258 against payment of Rs.17,798/-”. 
5.    It is clear from the version of the complainant that he has purchased the above said mobiles for re-sale purpose because it is mentioned in the notice  that he  has given the order to the opposite  party No.2 for two mobiles for his shop meaning thereby he purchased the above said mobiles for re-sale purpose. If any person who obtains the  goods for  re-sale or commercial purpose does not fall under the  definition of Consumer Protection Act. Hence, in view of the above discussion it is established on the file that complainant had purchased the two mobiles for re-sale purpose. So complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, 
            Ravi Sachdeva Vs. Shopclues etc.
                        …4…
there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with  no order as to costs.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 24.8.2016
                                      President,
 Member              Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                         Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                   Ravi Sachdeva Vs. Shopclues etc.
                        
                    
Present:  Sh. Neeraj Miglani Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties  already ex-parte.

             Arguments heard. To come up on 24.8.2016 for orders.
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                18.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Neeraj Miglani Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties  already ex-parte. 
              Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                24.8.2016