DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _182_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING :16.4.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT :28/04/2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Sri Sandip Dhara, 84/12, Narayan Roy Road, P.S. Thakurpukur, Kolkata – 8.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. BHARATI AIRTEL Limited, Infinity Building, 7th floor, Electronic Complex, Kolkata – 91, P.S. Bidhan Nagar.
2. M/s Fair Deal at 1, Sourin Roy Road, Kolkata – 34, P.S Behala.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act filed by the complainant on an allegation that he is by profession a business and involved with the construction business, for which, two connections were taken from the O.P-2 which were duly issued by the O.P-2 being no.9831110214 and 9831410214 respectively since long and using the same by paying necessary charges and bills whatsoever.
It is the further case of the complainant that he is using the said phone for his own and also for his business communication and due to failure of service within his business office as well as within his residence since two months complainant is facing serious problem to communicate with the persons who are related with his business and thereby incurred huge financial loss and business reputation in his business due to such failure of communication with the intending purchasers. It is the further case of the complainant that he has informed on 24.2.2015 and Nodal Officer of the O.P assured the complainant that within five days connection will be given ,but no such action has been taken. Complainant further lodged a complaint on 12.3.2015 before the Nodal Officer and again he has assured that within five days necessary action will be taken and thereby he has to suffer continuously which is an irreparable loss and damages financially and also in respect of social and business reputation. Hence, this complaint for a decree for Res.50,000/- along with accrued interest till date to be paid by the O.Ps to the complainant towards compensation and litigation cost Rs.20,000/-.
The O.P-2 is not contesting the case inspite of serving summon upon him, for which case is running against him in exparte.
The O.P-1 is contesting the case by foiling written version and has claimed that this case is not maintainable in the eye of Law. It has further stated that this complaint is baseless and made with an intention to malign the goodwill and reputation of the O.P and this Forum has no jurisdiction since there is no office within the jurisdiction of South 24-Parganas. It has further stated that O.P company provided from time to time proper services and attendance . So, it is a false allegation with malafide intention for unlawful gain from the O.P. So, the complaint case be treated as frivolous and afterthought and O.P is not deficient in rendering services to the complainant. Hence, the O.P-1 prays for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
At the outset we should aware who are consumers in view of Section 2(d)(i) of the C.P Act, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods etc. and hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or promised etc. but does not include the person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
Herein, admittedly complainant is a business and for the purpose of profit from the business both the connections were taken and he has admittedly claimed that he is suffering irreparable loss and damages particularly financial and also in respect of social and business reputation having no fault of him. So, in view of the C.P Act he is not a consumer since his transaction was a profit motive. Thus no need of further discussion and complaint case should be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case is dismissed on contest against the O.P-1 and exparte against the O.P-2 since complainant is not a consumer in light of the observation made in above , but considering the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post .
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the complaint case is dismissed on contest against the O.P-1 and exparte against the O.P-2 since complainant is not a consumer in light of the observation made in above , but considering the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.Ps through speed post .
Member Member President
