HDF CASE NO. 33 OF 2011
Vijoy Agarwal,
Son of Late Mahabir Prasad Agarwal,
Residing at 55, Chintamony Dey Road,
P.S. and District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 101. Complainant.
- Versus -
1. The Regional Customer Care In Charge ( East ),
Sony India Pvt. Ltd., White House ( 2nd Floor ),
119, Park Street,
Kolkata – 700 016.
2. NEOSA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
20, Aurobinda Road, Salkia,
Howrah – 700 002.
3. NEOSA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD
70/1/2, Gouribari Lane,
Calcutta – 700 004.
4. SONY WORLD,
4A, Elgin Road,
Kolkata – 700 020. Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
Hon’ble Member :Smt. Samikshya Bhattacharya.
ORDER NO. 1.
DATE : 11-05-2011.
One complaint petition is filed by the complainant Vijoy Agarwal, resident of 55, Chintamony Dey Road, P.S. and District – Howrah, against the ops. namely the Regional Customer Care In Charge ( East ) and three others alleging for deficiency in service.
Demand draft for Rs. 200/- is also filed therein which be kept on record.
Heard the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant who submits before us that the complainant has purchased a Sony Colour T.V. model no. KP-FX43M91 on 30-04-2004 by spending huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Sony World, 4A, Elgin Road, Kolkata – 700 020. He also submits before us that the complainant is a reputed cable operator earns his livelihood along with family from the business of cable operator and as such totally depends upon the said T.V. set but during the time of warranty period the said T.V. set creating problem for which after making several information over telephone, the authorized service centre but did not pay any hed and after lapse of long time on 27-07-2006 the said T.V. set was returned to him giving a certificate of fitness as O.K. condition on receiving an amount of Rs. 5,944/-. It is alleged that said authorized service centre have not done their duty properly but only to squeeze money and again the said T.V. set got problem and after information by the complainant on 31-07-2008 the service centre i.e., respondent no. 3 NEOSA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. called back and the said T.V. set was taken once again and asked to pay an advance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and after deposit the said advance amount the respondent no. 3 again repaired the problem. Then on 15-09-2008 the service in charge of the respondent no. 3 by a letter demanded further lump sum amount of Rs. 4,980.20 for replacing defective spares and after payment on 19-09-2008 the service centre returned back the said T.V. as O.K. condition. In spite of such repair the T.V. set again creating problem but ultimately having no other alternative the complainant served lawyers notice on 23-02-2011 asking to repair the T.V. set completely so that in future it would not create any problem or to replace the same by giving a new one as from the date of manufacturing the said T.V. said have its inner difficulties / defects but no action appears to have been taken as yet. So he filed the present case for getting certain relief.
He files the petition supported by an affidavit along with annexure documents including road challan money receipt, letters of authorized dealer, authorized service centre, advocates letter, retail invoice, certificate of councillor and statement of loan account dated 24-05-2009.
Having heard the ld. Advocate and upon perusal of the papers on record we find that the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as he was carrying the business for commercial purpose and not for livelihood. Further the certificate produced by the complainant which was issued by councillor is not sufficient to support that the complainant is carrying on business for the purpose of livelihood. Moreover, the complaint is barred by limitation and cannot be maintainable at this stage.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the present complaint is not maintainable and it is dismissed but without cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The complaint petition is thus disposed.
