Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/391

Gajraj Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sony India - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2017

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: 23.06.2014

Complaint Case. No.391/14                                        Date of order:  09.10.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Gajraj Soni FC/65, 1^st Floor Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-27                                                                    

Complainant

VERSUS

Sunayana Commodities Pvt. Ltd. A-39 Ground Floor, Rajouri Garden, Opp. T.D.I Mall, New Delhi-110027

           Opposite party no.1

Sony India Ltd. Regd. Office at A-31 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044

                                                                                                                      Opposite party no.2

Sony India Branch Office, Sony India Ltd. Unit -405-407, Copia Corporate Suites, Jasola Distt. Centre New Delhi-110010

          Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            The Brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present consumer complaint as stated are that Shri Gajraj Soni named above herein the complainant has filed the present complaint against Sunayana Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and others herein after in short referred as the opposite parties stating that the complainant vide invoice no. SW916467 dated 11.08.2011 purchased one T.V. model no. KD240EX520 from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for sale consideration of Rs.64,900/-. The T.V. within 7 months of the purchase developed fault. The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party no.2 and was repaired. But the T.V again developed fault. Mechanic of the opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the T.V. cannot be repaired. On 01.03.2014 the mechanic from authorized service center of the opposite party no.2 gave estimate of Rs.2,200/- for repair of the T.V and Rs.200/- for engineer visiting charges. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.22,00/- for repair of the T.V. But the opposite party no.2 send letter dated 25.03.2014 informing the complainant that Rs.21,369/- would be charged for repair of the T.V. However the estimate given by the opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 25.03.2014 is approximately ten times more then the estimate given by mechanic of the opposite party no.2. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they failed to repair the T.V.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to repair the T.V. without any charges and pay compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.   

            Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply contesting the complaint while taking preliminary objections that the complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Incorrect, misleading and false as well as concocted story is given by the complainant.

            On merits they asserted that initially repair estimate of Rs.21369/- was given to the complainant on the basis of detailed preliminary inspection conducted by experts of authorized service center of the opposite party no.2 and asserted that estimate of Rs. 2200/- was not given by engineer of the opposite parties. The documents are fabricated and forged by the complainant.  The complainant refused to pay the estimate amount given by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties controverting stand taken by the opposite parties and reiterating his stand taken in the complaint

            When the complainant was asked to lead evidence he tendered his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He also relied upon invoice dated 11.08.2011, job sheet no. 07050235330 dated 02.12.2013, undated job sheet no. 07050235330 and emails.

            When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Meena Boss AR of the opposite parties narrating facts of their reply and copy of resolution of board.

          The parties also filed written arguments in support of their respective contention and version.

            We have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

            Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection which reads as under:-

 

Section 2(1)(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 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 but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);

(Explanation- For the purposes of this clause “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for  the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment).

From perusal of the complaint, affidavits and documents relied upon by the parties it is evident that the complainant has not paid any consideration for availing or hiring services from the opposite parties. Therefore, under provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. 

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. So the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 09.10.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                   MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT