Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/854

M/s. SBS Electronic Equipments (P) Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharathi Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 25.04.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 06.03.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.854/2013

DATED THIS THE 6^th MARCH OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

M/s.SBS Electronic

Equipments (P) Ltd.,

R/at no.SBS Towers, Opp.Dr.Raj Ghat, Kantirava Studio, Nandhini layout,

2^nd block, Bengaluru-96.

Rep. by its CEO (Marketing)

 

By Advocates

M/s.Rajprabhu & Associates     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

Bharathi Airtel ltd.,

no.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Road,

Bengaluru-29.

Rep. by its Managing Director.

 

Ex-parte

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to pay Rs.9 lakhs towards the loss caused to the Complainant’s business. Further direct to pay for damages of Rs.10 lakhs towards the mental trauma and torture caused to the Complainant by Op’s wrongful act, deficiency of service etc., and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, Complainant company is in to the business of supply of Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) and Inverter of any range to its various customers for several years and has created its own name society and it is one of the known and reputed companies when it comes to their part of business. The Complainant further submits that, it was the customer under the Op by holding the mobile phone connection bearing no.9845130124 (hereinafter referred as the said phone number) and had obtained the service of the Op company.  Apart from using the services of the said phone number, the Complainant had also availed the services of the Op with respect other telephone/mobile numbers some of them being 9845930124, 9980340124, 9945860124, 7760364658 etc., and till date using the same and are regularly paying the bills without a single default. The Complainant further submits that, he was getting huge bills from the Op’s company ranging from 3000/- to 5000/- per month though outgoing calls from the mobile number were very less, the Complainant had decided to port his mobile number from Op’s service to other service provider.  The Complainant further submits that, accordingly he had sent a message to 1900 seeking portability on 07.01.12 and on the same day he received a reply message with a code number as no.AX738564 and he applied for the services of BSNL service provided on 07.01.12 and BSNL connection was activated on the same day to this said phone number. From the said date, he officially became a customer of the BSNL. It is also the case of the Complainant that, on 28.12.11, he had received the message from Op’s company directing the Complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,086/- being the due amount for the month of December 2011, on 07.01.12 the Complainant with an intention to port his mobile phone number services from Airtel to BSNL had paid a sum of Rs.2,900/- towards the bill of December 2011 in Airtel customer care centre, which means the Complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs.814/- apart from the security deposit of Rs.500/-. It is also the case of the Complainant that, on 18.01.12 he received another message from Airtel stating that the Complainant is due to Airtel a sum of Rs.335/- and it also claimed that the customer service had dispatched the bill by courier on 22.01.12. Complainant immediately called the Airtel customer care and informed that the Op can deduct the claimed sum of Rs.335/- from deposited amount of Rs.500/- which was in custody of the Op which was paid as security deposit at the time of obtaining the mobile connection from the Op. The Complainant further submits that, Op again sent a message stating that he is due to a sum of Rs.460/- as on 25.01.12 and again sent a message on 27.01.12 reminding about the due amount of Rs.460/-, even till that day he has not received any bill from any courier services as claimed to be dispatched by the Op. The Complainant further submits that, though he is not due for any amount, he as a law abiding citizen had even paid the claimed amount of Rs.460/- to Op. Even after clearing the claimed amount, he was continuously receiving reminder messages from 03.02.12 to 05.02.12 directing him to pay the previous service provider’s pending bill. The Complainant further submits that, he immediately intimated about the said message to Op and they informed the Complainant that if the bills were paid, he can ignore the message as the said messages are computer generated messages, the Complainant believing the Op’s words, ignored the messages. But the said connection came to be disconnected on 18.02.12. the Complainant immediately informed about the said issue to Op and Op is was not even ready to hear to his grievance, when they heard the Complainant had adopted the services of BSNL and banged the phone even when the Complainant was trying to explain the situation. The Complainant further submits that, it is into the business of supply of all types of UPS and Inverter of any range and have a sound business with turnover of crores of rupees. The Complainant further submits that, to promote his business had advertised in all leading daily newspapers such as The Times of India, Deccan Herald etc., He had given only this disconnected mobile number in all the newspapers ads, all the other phone numbers are landline phone numbers. As it was a Sunday and Monday being Shivrathri a Government holiday, the Complainant’s office was closed, and he was only available on this mobile phone number which was disconnected and the entire business for the said two days were solely depending on the said mobile phone number which was disconnected due to the negligence and deficiency of service of the Op. due to this act of Op, Complainant had to suffer loss in business worth Rs.10 lakhs. The said phone number restored only on 21.02.12, when the Complainant went to BSNL and informed the situation, there BSNL called up OP and explained the situation then only the said phone number was restored. The Complainant further submits that, the advertisements were published in the newspapers stated above on 18.02.12, 19.02.12 & 20.02.12 and the cost of the ads itself runs in to lakhs of rupees. The Complainant further submits that, Complainant company would approximately get about Rs.10 lakhs business each day through the newspaper aids, in which 30% would be actual profit. As there were no other contacts for the customers expect this said phone number, the Complainant has lost business worth Rs.30 lakhs which means there was a loss of Rs.9 lakh on the actual profit due to the deficiency of service of Op. Complainant has lost their profit for three days, loss of new customers, reputation among the dealers and customers and his future business through new contacts all worth crores. In this context, he got issued the legal notice dtd.02.03.12 & 02.01.13, but Op not responded to it. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. Notice were ordered to issue to Op, but Op did not appear, hence placed exparte.

 

          4. To substantiate the case, Accountant of the Complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced annexures A to L and 2 documents and also produced written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record.  

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined u/s.2(1)d of CP Act ?
2. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
3. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: Does not survive for consideration.   

Point no.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  On going through the entire text of the complaint, one thing is clear that, Complainant company would approximately get about Rs.10 lakhs business each day through the newspaper aids, in which 30% would be actual profit. As there were no other contacts for the customers except this said phone number, the Complainant has lost business worth Rs.30 lakhs which means there was a loss of Rs.9 lakh on the actual profit due to the deficiency of service of Op company. The Complainant further in the complaint specifically submits that, he is the customer of Op by holding the mobile phone connection bearing no.9845130124 and he had obtained the service of the Op company.  Apart from using the services of the said mobile phone number, he had also availed the services of the Op with respect to other telephone/mobile numbers some of them being 9845930124, 9980340124, 9945860124, 7760364658 etc., and till date using the same and are regularly paying the bills without a single default. As he has got huge bills from the Op’s company ranging from 3000/- to 5000/- per month, though outgoing calls from the mobile number were very less, hence he decided to port his mobile number from Op’s service to other service provider. So, the Complainant is used the said phone bearing no.9845130124 for the commercial purpose. When such being the fact, Complainant is not come within the definition of consumer as defined u/s.2(1)d of CP Act. Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the catina of following decisions repeatedly held that, if the service is availed for commercial purpose, the Complainant cannot be termed as Consumer.

1) II (2014) CPJ 82 (NC) in the case of Duggirala Prasad Babu v. Skoda Auto India pvt. ltd.,

2) II (2013) CPJ 72 (NC) in the case of General Motors India pvt. ltd., v. G.S.Fertilizers (P) ltd., & Anr.,   

3) IV (2013) CPJ 221 (NC) in the case of Sanjay Bansal v. Vipul ltd., & Anr.,

4) IV (2016) CPJ 469 (NC) in the case of Crompton Greaves ltd., Daimler Charysler India pvt. ltd.,

 

In this view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable, since he is not a consumer. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

8. Point no.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly point no.2 is answered.  

 

9. Point no.3: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.  

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 6^th March 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Raghavendra, who being the Accountant of complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Annex.A	Airtel bill dtd.12.12.11
Annex.B	Bill payment receipt
Annex.C	BSNL bill dtd.05.07.12
Annex.D	Bill payment receipt
Annex.E	Legal notice dtd.02.01.13
Annex.F	Postal acknowledgement
Annex.G	Postal receipt
Annex.H	Legal notice dtd.02.03.12
Annex.J	Postal acknowledgement
Annex.K	Postal receipt
Annex.L	Authorizing letter
Doc.no.1	Phone bill dtd.12.01.12
Doc.no.2	Payment receipt dtd.04.02.12

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT