Consumer Complaint No. 184 of 2016
Date of filing: 20.10.2016 Date of disposal: 08.11.2016
Complainant: Nabin Jain, S/o. Shambhunath Jain, A Partner of Jain Communication, a Partnership Firm, having its office at A-1/9, S.S.B.Sarani, Durgapur, PIN – 713 212.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. “AIRTEL”, represented by its Zonal Manager, having its Zonal Office at Nazrul Sarani, Doctor’s Colony, City Centre, Durgapur, District: Burdwan, Pin – 713 216.
2. Bharti Airtel Limited, represented by its Director, having its office at H, Bharti Crescent, I, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase II, New Delhi, 110 070.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.
Order No. 04, Dated: 08.11.2016
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice against the Ops by raising wrong bills and terminating the SIM card for harassing the complainant.
It is seen by us that admittedly the complainant being a disabled person is carrying on telecommunication business after getting franchise from the OP-1. Be it noted that the complainant along with his younger brother formed a partnership firm in the name & style “Jain Communication” on 28.8.2012 for the purpose of running telecommunication business. This complaint is initiated by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service, as well as, unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops because the Ops have terminated the SIM card provided by them for carrying out business with ulterior motive and for this reason the complainant being a member of a partnership firm is losing financial loss day by day due to deficient conducts of the Ops. By filing this complaint the complainant has prayed for giving direction to the Ops for restoration of the SIM card with previous number along with other reliefs.
At the very outset it is seen by us that being a partner of a partnership firm, namely, “Jain Communication” the complainant cannot initiate a complaint singularly in his name against the Ops under the C.P. Act, 1986. In the name of the partnership firm the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit. As per Act the partnership firm will be a person and the same will be represented by the complainant, that is permissible under the law. As this complaint has been filed only in the name of the complainant being a partner of a partnership firm, in our considered view this complaint cannot be maintainable in this manner before this ld. Forum. As per complaint the “Jain Communication” is a partnership firm and there is more than one partner, so the names of all the partners should be disclosed in the petition of complaint.
Going by the foregoing discussion as in this manner the complaint cannot proceed hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint be dismissed without being admitted. There is no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum/court seeking redressal of his grievance, if not barred otherwise.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost as per provisions of law.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
