Delhi

East Delhi

CC/898/2014

JAIKISHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.T.S - Opp.Party(s)

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no         898/2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               23/09/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              09/11/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -             10/11/2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Jai Kishan , adult   

S/o-Sh.  Asha Ram

R/o-46 B, Shivaji Gali, Pandit Park  

Ghondli, Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051…....………...…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                                 Vs

1-The Manager, MTS,  

Corporate Office- Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.,

MTS Tower, 334, Udhyog Vihar Phase IV

Gurgaon 122001

 

2-M/s P S Telecom  

U 202, Shakarpur, Nr Bank Of Baroda

Vika Marg, Delhi 110092

 

3-The Service Manager,

MTS Ensure Support Services India Ltd.

R 51, First Floor, Vikas Marg

Shakarpur, delhi 110092……. ……………………………………………Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocates                             Mahesh Saxena & Neelam Saxena

Opponent 1 & 2’s  Advocate                        Antima Bajaj & Ranjit Ranjan   

 

Quorum                                                Sh Sukhdev Singh   President

                                                               Dr P N Tiwari           Member                                                                                                    

                                                               Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant who was a practicing advocate, purchased Wi Fi broad band dongle of OP1 from OP2 1 vide model no. AC3633 white color bearing no. 84598463938 on dated 02/065/2014 for a sum of Rs 1900/ marked here as CW1/1. This dongle had 4GB data capacity. It was assured that internet connection would start within 24 hours. But activation could not be started, so complainant lodged certain complaints. Thereafter the internet connection was started.  But, soon after activation, it did not work properly, so again complaint was done and OP assured to give 10 GB data for one month use. Complainant could not use the data, so again lodged complaint to OP who asked to visit to their service station, OP3 and new dongle would be provided marked here as CW1/2.  OP informed complainant to take his dongle and get it charged and use it. It was alleged that OP had used his 4GB data which was present in his dongle. He visited OP to collect the new dongle on 25/08/2014,    but OP returned his old data card. By this act of OP, he suffered harassment and financial and professional loss due to the deficiency in services of OP. Hence, filed this complaint claiming Rs 5 Lakh as compensation for the loss of his reputation before his clients. He also claimed for the return of balanced 10 GB data from OP and Rs 55,000/- as litigation charges.

Notices were served. OP 1 submitted its written statement and denied all the allegations of complaint and stated that complainant was not a genuine consumer as he was using wi fi internet connection for his professional work which was a commercial business. OP cited example of M/s Max Infra India Ltd vs M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd in CC 93/2004 decided by the Honble National Consumer Commission, where it was held that commercial activities in financial transactions were not under the Act. OP also stated that the activities of complainant was against the provision of Section 2(d) i &(ii). OP also stated that commercial activities were not maintainable under the Act after the amendment in march 2003. OP also cited example of case titled as Subhash Motilal Shah (HUF) & others vs Malegaon Merchants Co operative bank Ltd in RP 2571/2012, decided by NCDRC, held that the complainant was not a genuine consumer. OP had also submitted that the present internet connection which complainant was using, was in others name (Ms Priyanka) vide internet no. 8459955054 and there was new device was ever issued, customers may use the balanced data of any device before recharging or de activation or surrendering it.  Also it was denied that they had exchanged any previous data.

Complainant submitted rejoinder and reaffirmed his facts. OP submitted their evidence on affidavit with RW1/1,2& 3. Complainant did not submit his evidences on affidavit despite of giving number of opportunities. Also, he did not appear on many dates of proceedings. Arguments were heard and after file perused, order was reserved.  

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, we have come to the conclusion that complainant could not prove deficiency of OP or put any merit in his case. So, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed, hence, dismissed without cost.  

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                             (Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                      

                                      

                                      Shri Sukhdev Singh President