Shri.  Avinash V. Prabhune, Member

            Heard the Counsel for Complainant & perused the Complaint with all documents.

1.                     In the present complaint, it is evident that the Complainant is the education institute, imparting education in the field of management & operating institute since year 2004. Complainant had taken Primary Rate Interface (PRI) line from O.P. & opted for unlimited usage plan. Complainant was paying Rs 11800/- per month regularly as per O.P’s. Economy-PRI plan. O.P. issued bill on dtd 09.01.2019 for the month of Dec 2018 for the period from 01/12/2018 to 31/12/2018 amounting Rs 9,78,787/-. It covered bills for the ISD call, which were never made by the complainant. Complainant exchanged various communications with O.P. against exorbitant bill but dispute was not resolved by the OP. Complainant preferred present complaint alleging unfair trade practices of O.P. & prayed for issuing directions for reducing bill to Rs 11800/-, paying Compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- for financial hardship & Costs of Rs 50,000/- with future interest @12% p.a.

2.                     It can be seen that Complainant is the education institute involved in imparting education in the field of management. It can be noted from bills that Complainant has been categorized as ‘Business category customer’. It can be seen from the doc.no. 1 that  said institute has appointed Wg. Comm. W.G.Sharma  as Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for managing the functions of the institute. He has been paid approximately Rs.1,80,000/- per month as a salary and various allowances,  therefore, Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is not fulfilling the requirement to qualify as a Consumer.   Moreover, complainant had not produced any documents on records or given any averment in the complaint so as to qualify complainant as ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)/sec 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986/2019.

3.                     Commission rely upon the Hon NCDRC judgment “M/S. Xerox India Ltd. vs M/S. Dalven Printers, First Appeal 228 of 2007, Judgment Dated 14.09.2012.” wherein, applicability & interpretation of the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d) has been elaborately discussed with the support of Hon Supreme court judgment in the “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583” & subsequent amendment  in the Consumer Protection  Act of 62 of 2002, which came into force with effect from 15.3.03. Commission is of the opinion that activities carried out by complainant cannot be considered as activity carried out by Complainant solely for any personal use or for earning livelihood by means of self employment. Considering the nature of business carried out by the Complainant, Commission is of the firm opinion that present Complainant is not entitled to be considered as ‘Consumer’ within definition of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

4.                     Hence, Complaint cannot be entertained & deserves to be dismissed, hence dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the Complainant to seek redressal of its grievance before the appropriate court/forum in accordance with the law.

ORDER

1)      Complaint is dismissed at admission stage.

2)      Liberty is granted to complainant to seek redressal of its grievance before the appropriate court/forum in accordance with the law.

3)      No order as to costs.

4)      Certified copy of this order be supplied to Complainant.