Delhi

StateCommission

A/273/2015

MR. ARCHIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 06.08.2015

FIRST APPEAL NO. 273/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 17-04-2015 passed in complaint case no. 125/2015 by the District Forum, Nand Nagari, Delhi)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Mr. Archit Gupta

C-208, Old Seemapuri

Delhi

Delhi-110095                                                                    …..Appellant

Versus 

The Managing Director

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited

Brigad Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1

Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W)                        …..Respondent

 

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK   -       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

                                  

N P KAUSHIK     -        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

ORDER

 

        Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 17.04.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Nand Nagari, Delhi. The impugned order is reproduced below:

        “The matter appears to be commercial, which is not related to Consumer Court. It is not considerable that 05 Refrigerators can be used by single family.

The case is dismissed.”

        The complainant stated in his complaint that the OP is a registered company and is an online portal dealing with the e-Commerce with its Head Office at Bangalore. Complainant on 11.10.2014 placed an order for purchase of five refrigerators. OP cancelled the purchase orders in respect of four refrigerators and informed the complainant that only one refrigerator could be purchased. Accordingly the OP supplied one refrigerator to the complainant. Grievance of the complainant is that there existed a contract between him and the OP and the OP was guilty of ‘deficiency in service’.

        Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that purchase of five refrigerators was not the requirement of family.

        Complainant has failed to place on record, if there existed a contract between him and the OP for the purchase of five refrigerators. Ld. Counsel for the complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Advocate has submitted that the Ld. District Forum ought have issued a notice to the OP. Be that as it may, it is the complainant who has to satisfy the Court that he wanted to purchase five refrigerators for his personal use so as to bring himself within the ambit of the definition, ‘consumer’ as provided under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Any purchase for commercial purposes is not protected by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In the circumstances, the Ld. Trial Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. Appeal to is dismissed, being not maintainable.

        Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

        FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(f)