DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Consumer Complaint No. 565 of 27.07.2017
Date of Decision : 03.08.2017
Dashmesh Enterprises through its Proprietor Pardamman Singh son of Late Sh.Kuldeep Singh, New Grain Market, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.
….. Complainant
Versus
1.Vadilal Enterprises Limited, 8th Floor, Times Square, Opp. Iskon Arcade, C.G.Road, Navrangpura(Ahemdabad)-380009 (Gujarat) through its authorized person/Director.
2.Vadilal Enterprises Limited, Registered Office, C&F Agents, S.K.Agencies, Plot No.971, Cabin No.2, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.
…Opposite parties
(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
QUORUM:
SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh.Naveen Thamman, Advocate
PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant claims himself to be running business under the name and style of Dashmesh Enterprises. This concern is a proprietorship concern and complainant is the distributor of Ops after installation of ice cream parlour of Vadilal in his shop situate at New Grain Market, Khanna. On demand of OP1, a security of Rs.2 lac was deposited through cheque and demand draft of date 19.2.2015 each. Amount of the demanded draft was debited in the account of OP1, who is authorized representative of OP2. Ops agreed to provide two refrigerators to the complainant for storage of ice cream items of Vadilal company. Two defective refrigerators were supplied to the complainant after receipt of the security amount of Rs.2 lac. Complainant requested Ops many times to replace the refrigerators, but Ops sent mechanic on three occasions for removal of the defects. However, despite that defects remained un-removed. One Navdeep Sharma of Ludhiana, is the sale officer of Ops and he used to behave rudely with the complainant. Complainant used to keep the ice cream items of Vadilal company in his personal refrigerators. Even complainant employed one Suresh Kumar on salary of Rs.10,000/- and he had been paying the electricity bills. Complainant stopped distributorship of Vadilal company w.e.f October 2016 by clearing all the bills of OP company. It is claimed that Ops liable to refund the security amount of Rs.2 lac with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. October 2016 till payment.
2. Arguments at the admission stage heard.
3. After going through contents of complaint as a whole, it is made out that the complainant as distributor of Vadilal Ice cream entered into transactions with Ops by depositing of security. So, the transactions in question with respect to which the deficiency pointed out are of commercial nature. As the complainant himself claimed in para no.3 of the complaint that he was distributor of Vadilal company, due to which, he had to deposit security amount of Rs.2 lac and as such, it is obvious that the complainant happened to have transactions with Ops at commercial scale. There is no allegation in the complaint that said business was carried by the complainant for earning livelihood for self employment. As transactions in question entered into between the complainant and Ops are of commercial nature and as such, complainant is not a consumer of Ops. Dispute in question regarding refund of security amount after stoppage of distributorship or for refund of salary amount etc., is of civil nature and complainant can avail remedy before Civil court or before the appropriate Forum only.
4. As per law laid down in case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.), if a software is purchased by a private limited company without pleading that same required by the Managing Director for running business for earning livelihood, then complainant will not be a consumer. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the above pointed circumstances and as such, certainly complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. Besides, from the facts pleaded in the complaint as well as in the supported affidavit, it is made out as if complainant as a distributor of Vadilal company was to carry on the business transaction during distributorship with Ops for indulging in commercial activity purely for earning profits. When such is the position,then complainant concerned is not a consumer even as per law laid down in case of Krishan Lal Kalra vs. Religate Securities Limited and another-II(2015)CPJ-338(N.C.). If the investment in booking of two flats was not for the residential purpose, then complainant concerned cannot be treated as consumer as per case titled as Inderjit Dutta vs. Samridhi Developer and others-II(2015)CPJ-342(N.C.). Same is the legal position reiterated in case of R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.). In view of this legal position and in view of the fact that distributorship was got by the complainant from Ops for commercial activity for earning profits, it is obvious that complainant is not a consumer of Ops. Being so, this consumer complaint is not maintainable at all and the same merits dismissal at the admission stage itself and accordingly the same is dismissed, but with the observations that the complainant may approach appropriate Court/Forum for availing due remedy. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.
6. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Param Jit Singh Bewli) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum
Dated:03.08.2017
Gurpreet Sharma.
