Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
VEENA BIRBAL, PRESIDENT & MRS. SALMA NOOR, MEMBER
RAMESH KUMAR ROHILLA - Appellant
Versus
GSEVEN COMPUTER BUSINESS (P) LTD. & ANR - Respondents
First Appeal No. 368 of 2014
Decided On : 02-11-2016
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the purchase of goods for commercial purposes with the motive of earning profits does not qualify the purchaser as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Software Purchase Dispute - Section 15 - [SOFTWARE PURCHASE DISPUTE] - [Consumer Protection Act, Section 2(1)(d), Section 12] - The court discussed the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the applicability of the Act to commercial activities. The court emphasized that the benefit of the explanation to the definition of 'consumer' is available to a person who avails services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The court referred to various judgments to establish that the purchase of goods for commercial purposes for earning profits does not qualify the purchaser as a 'consumer' under the Act. The court also highlighted that the Act is not meant for giving relief for commercial purposes. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the software was purchased for use in a large-scale business with the motive of maximizing profits, and therefore, the appellant was not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a proprietor of a firm, purchased accounting software for personal use. Alleged defects in the software and deficiency in service led to a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was initially rejected, but on appeal, the matter was remanded back to the District Forum for further proceedings. The District Forum ultimately dismissed the complaint, stating that the appellant was not a 'consumer' as prescribed under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's purchase of the software was for commercial purposes with the motive of earning profits, and therefore, the appellant was not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. The court also noted that the alleged defects in the software could not be adjudicated without elaborate evidence, which was not possible under the summary procedure prescribed under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant qualified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, given the commercial nature of the software purchase and the motive of maximizing profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the benefit of the explanation to the definition of 'consumer' is available to a person who avails services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The court referred to various judgments to establish that the purchase of goods for commercial purposes for earning profits does not qualify the purchaser as a 'consumer' under the Act. The court also highlighted that the Act is not meant for giving relief for commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
ORDER :
MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL, PRESIDENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, the Act) wherein challenge is made to order dated 20.3.14 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (in short, the District Forum) in Complain Case No. 82/11 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:
The appellant herein i.e. the complainant before the learned District Forum is a proprietor of the firm, namely, M/s. Carewell Pipes having office at 201-202, 2nd Floor, Bhanot Bhavan, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi. The appellant/complainant had purchased accounting software Tally ERP9 (in short “software”) for his personal use from respondent No. 1/OP-1 i.e. M/s. GSEVEN Computer vide Invoice No. GSCBPL/8/9/803 dated 30.1.2009. The said software was licensed as Tally Gold SN 72314289 and Tally Silver SN 79312013 by respondent No. 2/OP-2. The respondent No. 2/OP-2 is the manufacturer/developer/program-mer of the aforesaid software and sells the same through respondent No. 1/OP-1. The software was purchased at a price of Rs. 54,000. It was alleged that at the time of purchase, the respondent No. 1/OP-1 had agreed and confirmed certain specifications of the software on the basis of which order for the software was confirmed. The alleged specifications are given in detail in the complaint.
3. It was alleged that after the software was installed, the respondent-1/OP-1 started delaying the service which it had promised and in the course of time the appellant/complainant noted defects in the software and deficiency in the service on the part of respondent No. 1/OP-1. The same are reproduced as under:
“(i) The Opposite Party-1 gave incomplete free training to be given for three hours for two days to the complainant.
The Opposite Party-1 did not bother despite repeated calls to activate synchronization of complainant’s two computer units in order to send the data from one station Godown to other station office. This resulted in heavy loss of time and money to the complainant in learning and getting it done through others at a very higher cost where as the Opposite Party-1 has promised to complete it at a very nominal cost of Rs. 2,528 as promised during the purchase of main software.
The Opposite Party-1 did not give the support on telephone to the complainant as promised. They mostly avoided the complaint phone calls of the complainant and further they gave the excuse several times that the concern person is not available in the office.
The customized file invoice. Tcp stopped working first time on 16.11.2009 due to date restriction. When the complainant reported the matter to the Opposite Party-1, they did some adjustment and the invoice.tcp file worked for a limited period. Again it did not work and the complainant again reported to the Opposite Party-1 for this failure on 17th Feb., 2010. The complainant further requested the Opposite Party-1 to rectify the same properly so that failure should not repeat and the Opposite Party-1 promised that it will never happen in future. But the said invoice. tcp file stopped working again on 16.5.2010. The complainant immediately reported to the Opposite Party-1 on phone because it was holding up complainant’s entire system of sale invoice issue to his customers. To the great surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Party-1 refused to rectify it and asked to the payment of Rs. 5,056.00 where as per the agreed terms, the Opposite Party-1 was supposed to arrange the return amount of Rs. 5,402 from the Opposite Party-2 to the complainant’s chartered accountant and then the complainant was supposed to pay to the Opposite Party-1 the customization charges of Rs. 5,056. The complainant pleaded before the Opposite Party-1 not to adopt such unethical business practices and further requested to keep the promise as agreed at the time of purchase of the software. But the Opposite Party-1 did
