w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Gajraj Soni v/s Sunayana Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Others

    First Appeal No. 626 of 2017
    Decided On, 04 May 2021
    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. ANIL SRIVASTAVA
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellant: Harish Sandhu, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.


Judgment Text
Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President—[Via Video Conferencing].

1. Brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the Appellant purchased a T.V. bearing model No. KD240EX520 from Respondent No. 1, manufactured by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for an amount of Rs. 64,900. For the said T.V., the Respondent No. 1 issued an invoice bearing No. SW916467.

2. The said TV was not working properly and the Appellant time and again raised the said issue with the Respondent No. 2. On multiple occasions, the executives of the Respondent No. 2 visited the Appellant to repair the TV but the issue could not be resolved permanently.

3. On 1.3.2014, an executive of the Respondent No. 2 visited the Appellant for repairing the TV and gave an estimate of Rs. 2,200 for the repair and Rs. 200 as Engineer Visiting Charges. Thereafter, a letter dated 25.3.2014 was sent by the Respondent No. 2 stating that the actual repair charges to be borne by the Appellant comes out to be Rs. 21,369 which was almost 10 times the amount actually quoted by the Engineer who visited the Appellant.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. The Respondents contested the complaint before the District Forum on the ground that the estimate of Rs. 2,200 claimed to be given by the Executive of the Respondents is false and fabricated and no such estimate was ever given to the Appellant; that an estimate of repair amounting to Rs. 21,369 was shared with the Appellant only after thorough examination of the faulty TV.

5. After perusing the record, the District Forum vide its order dated 9.10.2017, held as under:

“From perusal of the complaint, affidavits and documents relied upon by the parties it is evident that the complainant has not paid any consideration for availing or hiring services from the opposite parties. Therefore, under provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. So the complaint is dismissed.”

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. We have heard the Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material available on record.

7. The perusal of the record before us reflects that the TV, which is the subject matter of the present appeal was bought on 11.8.2011 and carried a warranty of One year. When the services of the Respondent No. 2 were being availed, the TV was not under warranty since the Appellant approached the Respondent No. 2 in the year 2014. Hence, there existed no relation of Consumer-Service Provider amongst the Appellant and the Respondents as the warranty period had already expired.

8. Moreover, with due regard to the aforesaid fact, even if it is accepted that an estimate of Rs. 2,200 was given to the Appellant by the executives of the Respondents, which was later increased to an amount of Rs. 21,369, that does not make the Appellant a Consumer of the services of the Respondents as there is no Privity of Contract between the two parties, since the Appellant denied to take the services of the Respondents.

9. Hence, we are of the view that since there was no consideration involved at the time the dispute, which is the subject matter of the present appeal arose, the Respondents cannot be said to be Deficient in providing its Services to the Appellant. Consequently, the findings of the District Forum in the given circumstances are well within the four corners of the law governing such transactions, which is the subject matter of the present dispute.

10. In terms of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal stands dismissed being bereft of merit.

11. No orders as to

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
cost. 12. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeal dismissed.
O R