BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 17^th day of March 2018

Filed on : 10-06-2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.364/15

Between

James Sebastian, : Complainant

S/o. Sebastian. K.K., (party-in-person)

Managing Director,

Kardian Pharma India Pvt. Ltd.,

Pearl Gardens, Kochi-26.

And

Idea Cellular Ltd., : Opposite party
Represented by its Manager, (By Adv. P. Jayabal Menon,

V.J. Tower, Vyttila P.O., J&J Associates, Lawyers &

Ernakulam-682 019. consultants, T3, III floor, Empire

Building, Old Railway Station Road,

High Court East End, Kochi-682 018)

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. Complainant’s case

2. The complainant is the Managing Director of Kardian Pharma India Pvt. Ltd., a Multi crore pharmaceutical company. He subscribed a mobile connection from the opposite party M/s. Idea Cellular Ltd., for his business purposes. He was using it from March 2010 and payments are being made promptly by issuing cheques ICICI bank, Edappally branch. The opposite party prepared an invoice dated 21-03-2015 charging Rs. 1301.80 as extra adjustments against the actual amount of Rs. 320.86. When the complainant enquired about it, he was answered that the said amount was due to the penalty for bouncing cheques. As the complainant was sure that none of his cheques were bounced, he asked for the details of the bounced cheques. However, the opposite party was not prepared to give the details. The opposite party continued to harass the complainant by making daily phone calls seeking payments. While so, the complainant make the payment of Rs. 409/- against the bill on 8^th may 2015. But on 10^th may 2015 the opposite party without any valid reason to establish their claim, discontinued their service to the above number without any intimation. This conduct of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant pray for an order to pay him a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- for loss of business of the complainant due to the disconnection of mobile connection. The complainant also seeks compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards commission of unfair trade practice against him, in addition to the costs of the proceedings.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and contested the claim on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable. I.A. 438/16 was filed challenging the maintainability.

4. Therefore the question of maintainability was heard.

5. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party the consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction of dispute relating the telephone service and telephone bills in the light of the special remedy provided in Section 7 B of Indian Telegraph Act read with Telegraph Rules. In addition to that, the complainant was using the disputed telephone connection admittedly for business purposes which infers commercial usage. In such case, the complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. We have gone through the relevant records and provisions of Law with regard to the subject in issue.

6. The complainant in his complaint has admitted that the managing director of a pharmaceutical company with multi crore business in para 1 of the complaint, he has categorically stated that he took the mobile connection for business purpose . The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer. However, on going through the proviso Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant having admittedly used for commercial purposes, the complainant can not be said to be a ‘consumer’ as per the relevant provisions of the consumer Protection Act . The subject matter of the claim with regard to the billing of telephone is governed by Section 7 B of the India Telegraph Act and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint as consumer complaint.

7. For the above reasons, we find that the complaint is not maintainable and therefore dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of March 2018

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Appendix

Complainant's Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Invoice dt. 21-02-2015

A2 : Invoice dt. 21-04-2015

A3 : Payment details

Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil

Depositions

PW1 : James Sebastian

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By Hand: