State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hitesh Chugh vs Adarsh Telecom on 18 September, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 840 of 2016 Date of Institution: 15.09.2016 Date of Decision : 18.09.2017 Hitesh Chugh son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of House No.945/8, Sanoli Road, Panipat. Appellant-Complainant Versus 1. Adarsh Telecom through its Proprietor Shop No.6, Dr. Madho Ram Market, G.T. Road, near Sanjay Chowk, Panipat. 2. Shri Services through its Manager, 353, Basement Mughal Canal, Karnal-132114. 3. Redington (India) Limited through its Managing Director Ground Floor, "Centre Point", Plot No.8 and 11 (SP) Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkadhutangal Guindy, Chennai-600032. Respondents-Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued By: Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for appellant. None for the respondents No.1 & 3.
(Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated September 12th, 2017) O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL) This complainant's (Hitesh Chugh) appeal is directed against the order dated July 21st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short, 'District Forum') whereby complaint was dismissed on the short ground that the mobile phone was being used by the complainant for business purposes and as such, he was not a 'consumer'.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents No.1 and 3 on December 13th, 2016. Shri Sunil Kumar Wadhwa, Advocate and Sh. Sumanta Panda, Area Sales Manager appeared for the respondents No.1 and 3. Thereafter, none appeared on their behalf. Today, also position is the same. This Commission thinks it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the case file.
3. Question inter alia before the Forum was whether the complainant who purchased the mobile phone from the opposite party was a 'consumer' or not?
4. In the present case, the complainant purchased mobile phone on August 28th, 2014. The mobile phone developed some defects. The complainant requested the opposite parties to remove the defects but the opposite parties failed to do so. The complainant alleged that on account of non functioning of mobile phone, he had suffered lot of inconvenience and harassment as he was required to make and receive professional calls, which he could not do. The complainant was using the mobile phone interalia for help in his business but that does not disqualify him to be a 'consumer'. The mobile phone was not purchased for resale. It was purchased for personal use. Merely making business calls would not make any difference. The approach of the District Forum was misconceived to say the least. The Forum and all concerned should understand that if a person purchases an article or gadget for his own use, it will not be a purchase for commercial purpose. To cite one example, if a person purchases a car and uses it for business trips and it is found to be defective, would he be barred from seeking a relief under the Consumer Protection Act. To answer it in positive would only be comically ridiculous. Merely by using the mobile phone for making or receiving professional calls cannot be said to be used for commercial purpose. Commercial use connotes sale etc of the purchased goods further for profit. The District Forum ought to have decided the complaint on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground that the complainant was not 'consumer'.
5. For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum to decide it afresh on merits.
6. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum, Panipat and also to Presidents of all other District Fora in the State of Haryana.
Announced:
18.09.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK