Complaint filed on: 27.07.2016
Complaint Disposed on:08.11.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.87/2016
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.Sandeep H.L.
S/o H.S.Laxmana Shetty,
Aged about 34 years,
Prop: Maruthi Multi Gym,
Vijaypura, Chikmagalur.
(By Sri/Smt. S.R.Madhu, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Proprietor, Health Wealth
Sports and Fitness, Branch Office,
Near Krishna Medicals,
Vijaypura Main Road, Chikmagalur.
2. The Proprietor, Health Wealth Sports
And Fitness, A.F.Plaza, Bandhi Bazarr,
B.M.Road, Hassan.
3. The Proprietor, Excel International,
No.25, Devaloga Street, Military Line,
Palayam, Kottai, Tirunelveli – 627 002
Tamilnadu.
BY SMT. B.U.GEETHA - MEMBER
:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OPs alleging deficiency in service in selling the defective Castle Tread Mill and spin bike to the complainant. Hence, complainant prays for direction against Ops 1 to 3 to replace the defective articles sold to the complainant with new one or to refund an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and Rs.27,000/- respectively.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is the proprietor of Maruthi Multi Gym. The complainant has purchased castle tread mill, quantity No.2 on 02/12/2013 for Rs.1,95,000/- from OP No.2 which was delivered by OP No.1. The complainant started to use the same for the purpose of running the multi Gym. From the date of purchase onwards, the said article is not working properly. In this regard, the complainant complained about the defect found in the article to the Ops by phone. After receiving the complaint, the Ops have promised that they will solve the defects in the said article and also the said article has got two years warranty period. It is the bounden duty of the Ops either to replace the article or to refund the entire amount of the article. But the Ops have not responded in this regard.
Further the complainant submits that he has purchased a spin bike from OP No.2 on 08/09/2014 for Rs.27,000/- which was delivered by OP No.1. After purchasing the said spin bike, the peddle gives trouble. In this regard, the complainant complained about the same to the Ops through telephone and after receiving the complaint, the Ops told the complainant to hand over the said spin bike to OP No.1 to solve the defect found in the spin bike in the month of February – 2015. But, so far, the Ops have not solved the said defect in the spin bike. It is also comes under the warranty period. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 27/06/2015 and 12/02/2016 to replace the defective castle tread mill and spin bike with new one or to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and Rs.27,000/- respectively to the complainant. In spite of service of notice, the Ops have not responded to the said legal notice. Hence, complainant filed this complaint.
3. Heard the arguments on admission.
4. On going through the pleadings and documents, we noticed that the complainant had purchased castle tread mill on 02/12/2013 for Rs.1,95,000/- and spin bike on 08/09/2014 for Rs.27,000/-.
5. The complainant in his complaint alleged that there was a defect in the articles purchased by the complainant and therefore the complainant complained the Ops with regard to defects in the articles, but the Ops neither have bothered to rectify the defect nor refunded the money. Hence, the complainant without any other alternative filed this complaint.
6. On perusal of the complaint copy and documents, we are of the opinion that the complainant admitted in his complaint that he is the proprietor of Maruthi Multy Gym and also admitted that he was purchased the above two articles for the purpose of running a Multi Gym. Therefore, we are of the opinion that he is doing commercial business. The complainant in his legal notice dated:27/06/2015 clearly stated that due to defect in the articles, the complainant is loosing income from business and also the complainant is losing customers. Hence, it clearly shows that the complainant has purchased these two articles for the purpose of earning profit. Further, the complainant in his complaint no-where mentioned that he is running a Gym for the purpose of his livelihood. It clearly goes to show that it is purely commercial transaction. Therefore, the complainant is not at all a consumer under provision of the C.P. Act and therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. Accordingly, complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 8th day of November 2016).
(RAVISHANKAR)
President
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA)
Member Member
Tss
