Delhi

New Delhi

CC/319/2012

Binno Sharma Prop Deyboo International - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sony India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

        

                             CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                            (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                      ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C. 319/12                                                         Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Binoo Sharma,

403, Top Floor, Royal Palace Building,

G-55, Laxmi Nagar, Main Vikas Marg,

Delhi-110092,

 

 

                                                                                                 …… Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

          A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

             Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110044.

 

2. M/s. AVIT

           62, Janpath, Connaught Place,

             New Delhi-110001.

            H.O. 86-87 Model Basti, Rani Jhansi Road,

          New Delhi-110005.

 

                                                                       

                                                                                        …….Opposite Parties

 

 

H.M.VYAS :MEMBER

ORDER

        Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) against  M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd., thereinafter  referred to as OP praying for reliefs as under :-

1. “To replace the Computer with new one or Refund the Rs. 98,000/- paid to the respondent for the purchase of the said computer Set.
2. Interest from date of purchase on Rs. 98,000/- at 18% per annum.
3. Damages for harassment, physical injury and mental agony assessed at Rs. One Lakh only.
4. Costs of the present proceeding.
5. Further and other reliefs as the complainant is entitled to.”

 

It is alleged by the complainant that he purchased a computer ( model VPCL218FG/BE1)  worth Rs. 98,000/- for self use in July 2011 vide invoice number 5050371 dated 14/7/2011 from OP 2.  The warranty is for one year.  The copy of the invoice & warranty card dated 14/07/2011 is annexure A & B with the complaint.  It is alleged that on installation of the Wi-Fi in the office it was found that the LAN port of the computer failed to connect net connection and was faulty.  Complaint to Sony India was made through their customer care centre and service engineer informed that it is hardware failure of the computer and required repair.  The same defect was confirmed by the OP’s senior IT SPECIALIST Sh. Amitabh Sinha at subsequent date.  The request of the complainant for replacement of the computer having manufacturing defect was declined, however, the OP -1 agreed to change the part with an equivalent and/or reconditioned part to which the complainant did not agree.  The complainant then sent a legal notice dated 24/01/2012 to the OP.  The reply of the OP-1 is dated 09/02/2012.  It is mentioned in the reply that replacement of the product is not warranted as it only required change of the LAN port which is just a minor work and could be changed then & there which was not allowed by the complainant and insisted for replacement of the computer.  Alleging deficiency in service of OPs, the complaint is filed

            The OPs were noticed and written statement/version filed.  The OPs  resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer falling under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the computer was purchased for commercial purposes.  The OP-1 denied all allegations stating that only the LAN port was required to be changed and for such a small reason the computer cannot be replaced.   The complainant himself did not allow the engineers of OP for necessary replacement of the LAN port on various occasions which would have turned the desktop to perfect working condition.  It is stated by OP 1 that all the mails and communications of the complainant were duly replied.  Further it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of both the parties stating that the payment of the cost of the computer was made from his personal account and that he falls under the definition of consumer while affirming the text of the complaint and denying all contents of the version of the Ops which are not in tune with the complaint.

            All the parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit supporting their respective contentions.  The complainant also filed written submissions thereafter.  Oral arguments addressed on behalf of the complainant and OP-1.

            We have considered the material placed before us and the submissions made by the parties.  The primary issue raised by the OPs against the complainant is that the complainant is not covered within the definition of consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the computer was purchased for commercial purposes.  Before the case is considered on merits it is expedient to examine the issue whether the complainant falls within the definition of consumer? 

            A perusal of the copy of Retail Invoice dated 14/07/2011,  service job sheet dated 07/01/2012 clearly mentions the customer name as “Deyboo international 403, Top Floor, G-55, Laxmi Nager 5^th floor.” Further the complainant himself has stated in para that he had a Wifi installation in his office so there was no requirement of connecting the desktop through LAN port by wire. It is also indicative of using the desktop in the office. We are therefore, of the considered view that the purchase of the desktop in the name of the firm was for business purposes and as such the complainant does not fall within the scope of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works V/s P.S.G. Industrial Institute reported as 1995 AIR 1428, 1995 SCC (3) 583. The  complaint accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach appropriate Court in accordance with law in need be.

Announced in open Forum on 14/09/2018.

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA

PRESIDENT

 

                   NIPUR CHANDNA                                                                    H.M. VYAS

                            MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER