In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 186 / 2009 .
1) Sri Kushal Patel, Director, VMT Fibreglass Indistries Pvt. Ltd.,
27A, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Person In Charge, M/s. Hewlett Packard Service Centre,
88A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026.
2) The Manager, M/s. Hewlett Packard Service Centre,
24, Solarpuria Avenue, Adugodi, Flower Road, Bangalore-560030. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 30 Dated 29/08/2012.
The instant case has been filed by the complainant with allegations of supplying defective goods and deficiency in rendering service against the o.ps. viz M/s Hewlett Packard Service Centre and M/s Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a laptop with accessories on 18.4.05 and on 6.5.07 for some necessary repairing he sent the said laptop to o.p. no.1and received the job card from o.p. no.1. But instead of repeated requests he did not receive the laptop in question for replacement of the same by a new one. Hence the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his disputes and he prayed for relief as mentioned in the complaint petition.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v denying all the material allegation labeled against them and prayed or dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence and documents in particular. Before going to the merit of the case, this is need to be mentioned that it is observed from annex-A of complaint petition that the laptop in question was purchased by Taj Auto Fin Ltd. and complaint was lodged on 13.8.07 in relation to the laptop by BMT Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. After considering four corners of the instant case from all the documents before the Forum by all the parties and hearing every nook and corner from the parties, it is crystal clear that neither the goods have been purchased by complainant and nor it is mentioned that the goods was purchased not for ‘commercial purpose’. Therefore we are of the opinion that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and being ‘user of the goods’ he has failed to satisfy this Forum that the laptop in question was purchased for use of personal purpose. Hence, we are of the opinion that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning and purview of ‘consumer’ as defined in the COPRA 1986.
Hence the case of complainant is dismissed for want of jurisdiction against all the o.ps. without cost with a liberty to file the same at proper Forum on self same cause of action.
