Shri Arun Singh                             Vs.                    M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.

14.11.2017

Present :      None for the complainant.

Shri Munish Bhatnagar Adv. for OP.

          None was also present on behalf of the complainant on 07.07.2017 and again on 05.09.2017. None is also present today.     This is a 2007 case. Therefore, we have heard the counsel for OP-1 and have also carefully perused the record.

We proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

The averments made in the complaint, in nutshell, are that the complainant had availed the internet services from the OP for the period February 2002 to August 2003 and that there were various deficiencies in services provided by the OP as detailed in the complaint due to which he incurred huge losses to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and also suffered from various hardships and agonies. It is further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice on 27.08.2003 through his advocate to the OP in which it was mentioned that the internet connection be terminated and the complainant be compensated for huge losses and hardships due to the deficiency in services but to no effect. On 26.09.2003, complainant was asked to return the modem on behalf of the OP.

Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to compensate him in terms of money to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization for the deficiency in  services on the part of OP and huge losses and hardships incurred/ suffered by the complainant and not to seek the return of the modem that was forming part of the internet package and to award the cost.

          In the reply OP has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant had purchased the internet connection in question for business purposes and doing large scale commercial activities and hence complainant is not a “Consumer” within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further stated that due to non-payment of monthly bill for the month of August-September, 2003, the connection in question was disconnected. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

          In the replication, the complainant has not specifically denied that the internet connection in question was not being used for business purposes and for doing large scale commercial activities or that the connection had been disconnected due to non-payment of monthly bill for the month of August-September, 2003.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Authorized signatory has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed.

In order to substantiate his contention that the internet connection in question had been taken by the complainant for
 

Shri Arun Singh                             Vs.                    M/s Dishnet DSL Ltd.

commercial purposes, the counsel for OP has drawn our attention to the plea raised in the legal notice dated 27.08.2003. Admittedly, the said legal notice was sent by the complainant to the OP copy of which is annexure-B.

Para-8 of the said legal notice reads as under:-

“Such kind of callous attitude from a company of such a repute is not at all expected. The business of my client for the last one year has been hampered as the nature of work of my client is such that the business and transactions takes place through internet only, which is the basic and foremost necessity of my client’s business.”

This paragraph proves that the complainant had infact taken the internet connection in question for the business/ commercial purposes and not for his personal use. It is not the case of the complainant that he had taken the internet connection in question for the purposes of earning his livelihood.

Therefore, in our considered opinion, that being a commercial transaction, the complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

Secondly, the complainant had not led any evidence to show that the internet connection had not been disconnected due to non-payment of the bill for the month August-September, 2003. Therefore, OP cannot be held guilty on this count as well.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 14.11.2017.