Delhi

South II

CC/490/2009

SMT. PUSHPA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TULIP IT SERVICES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2018

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/490/2009
( Date of Filing : 06 Jul 2009 )
 
1. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI
1677, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. TULIP IT SERVICES PVT. LTD.
A-235, OKHLA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
  Ritu Garodia MEMBER
  H.C.SURI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 17 Aug 2018
Final Order / Judgement

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)x

New Delhi – 110 016

 

 

Case No. 490/2009

 

 

SMT. PUSHPA DEVI

R/O  1677, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

CHAWLA STAND, NAJAFGARH

NEW DELHI

 

………. COMPLAINANT

 

Vs.

 

 

TULIP IT SERVICES PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS /PROPRIETOR/MANAGER/A.R.

AT A- 235,OKHLA PHASE-

NEW DELHI

 

………….RESPONDENT

 

    Date of Order: 17/08/2018

 

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia-Member

 

            The complainant pertains to deficiency in service in providing internet connectivity by OP.  The complainant is a sub broker/ agent of Escort Securities Private Limited and provided online share trading service to the client.  The complainant paid Rs. 78,652/- to OP for installation of RF-VPN connectivity.  The connectivity was not up to required standard. Correspondences were exchanged between the parties regarding the same. The complainant had to face losses as purchase and selling of stock could not be done in time due to low connectivity.  The complainant has filed invoice and email from OP from

 

            The complainant in its rejoinder has stated that the bills were issued in the name of the complainant and were duly paid by the complainant. Escort Securities Private Limited has placed a purchase order for the said connection but it was being used by the complainant. It is denied that the dispute is a commercial dispute and the sub broker ship was taken by the complainant to earn his livelihood.

 

            We have perused the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties.  It is admitted by the complainant that she is a sub broker providing online share trading services to her clients.  The complainant has nowhere stated in the complaint that she is carrying on her business for the purpose of earning her livelihood. It was mentioned in her rejoinder only as afterthought.

 

            Hon’ble National Commission in Dinesh Somani & Anr. v/s JMD Construction I(2017) CPJ 337 (NC) has observed that:

Section 2(1) (d) of the Act defines the term ‘consumer’ as under:

2(1) “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 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 purpose 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”).

3. On bare reading of the above, it is clear that definition of consumer has been provided with inbuilt exception in the statute excluding the purchaser of the goods. (hirer of the services for commercial purpose. In the instant case, admittedly the complainant had hired/ availed the services of the opposite party for construction of factories, namely, M/s Jai Balaji Industries and M/s Jai Mata Di Industries. Thus, it is obvious that services of the opposite party were hired/ availed by the complainant for commercial purpose i.e. construction and running of industry for making profits.  Thus, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1) (d) of the Act particularly when it is not the case of the complainant that he is covered within the explanation to section which gives restricted meaning to the term ‘commercial purpose’.  As the complainant is not a consumer, he cannot raise the consumer dispute.

 

            In this case, Complainant has herself admitted that she was providing online share trading services.

 

Even otherwise  the complainant has not placed any complaint or any correspondence with OP regarding lack of connectivity. Even the emails annexed with the complaint shows that “link “ is working fine to Complainants satisfaction. Complainant has not filed any email from her side disputing the link or any other connectivity problem.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence apart from the self-serving affidavit that there was deficiency in connectivity provided by OP. Hence,  complaint is dismissed for reason mentioned hereinabove. File consigned to record room. 

   

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)                       (H.C SURI)                                    (A.S YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

.

 

 
 
[ A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Ritu Garodia]
MEMBER
 
[ H.C.SURI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.