DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  243

                                                Instituted on:    18.05.2018

                                                Decided on:       02.01.2019

Deepak Bansal son of Sh. Naresh Chand, resident of Mohalla Bhai Ka, Ward No.10, Near Rose Garden, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distr. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Mobilatic Communication (Idea) Service Centre, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.             Idea Cellular Limited, Delhi Circle, A-68, Sector 64, Noida (NCR) through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Parul Chawla, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.    :       Exparte.

For Opp.Party No.2  :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

Quorum:   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                Mrs. Manisha, Member

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member.

1.             Shri Deepak Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant was having a post paid mobile connection bearing number 94785-94000 of Airtel company and later on the complainant got ported the said mobile connection to Idea company on 5.5.2018 and the connection was ported on 11.5.2018 by the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that on 10.5.2018 the OPs sent emails to the complainant and informed that his idea post paid connection number is successfully activated.  On the next date i.e. on 12.5.2018 the OPs illegally and without giving any prior intimation to the complainant stopped the services of the mobile number in question, as such the complainant approached the OP number 1, who told that there was problem of sim card.  Thereafter the complainant sent emails to the Ops to reactivate his connection, but nothing happened. The complainant suffered a lot of loss, agony and harassment due to non working of the mobile number as he was working as a share broker. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to activate the services of his mobile number 94785-94000 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear, as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint has wrongly been filed before this Forum and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got ported the said number.  Further it is averred that the complainant is misleading the Forum by averring that the email dated 10.5.2018 was sent by the OPs and informed that his number was successfully activated.   However, it is admitted that the request for sim change for mobile number 9478594000 with free of cost SIM charge was successfully processed on 14.5.2018.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1A to Ex.OP2/4 and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully gone through the record, heard the oral arguments, none of the parties submitted the written arguments.

6.             It is admitted fact that the complainant was having post paid mobile connection and ported the same to Idea company on 5.5.2018 and the same was ported on 11.5.2018 by OP to Idea post paid.  The complainant in his complaint has admitted that he is working as share broker and due to non activation of mobile number, the complainant neither contacted his clients nor his clients contacted him.  A person who carries on whole sale business certainly carries the same for earning profit and not for earning livelihood alone. Being so, complainant cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   Purchase of generator set for generating electricity for running a factory for manufacturing of handloom products will render the complainant concerned not a consumer as per law laid down in case of R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.). Likewise, in case of Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.), it has been held that if computer software is purchased by a private limited company without pleading that same used by the Managing Director for running business for earning livelihood or self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer. Breach of buyer agreement qua the purchase of commercial space also renders the customer concerned not a consumer as per case titled as Manu Talwar vs. DPT Ltd-IV(2015)CPJ-396(N.C.). If a car purchased for use of the Director of the company for commercial purpose, but not exclusively for earning livelihood by way of self employment, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer as per law laid down in case titled as Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House-2015(IV)CLT-265(N.C.). Even Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited-(2011)1-Supreme Court Cases-525 has held that if services availed in respect of goods purchased for commercial purposes, then complainant concerned will not be a consumer. Even the installation of lift for commercial purpose renders the purchaser concerned not a consumer as per law laid down in case titled as Nikita Cares vs. Surya Palace IV(2015)CPJ-405(N.C.). Purchase of Truck chassis for expanding the existing transport business also renders the purchaser concerned not a consumer, particularly when the purchase not shown to be exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment as per case titled as Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.). Ratio of all these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly when loan in question availed for business purposes and the said business expanded to the category of wholesale business as discussed above for earning profit and not for earning livelihood. In view of this, consumer complaint is not maintainable, more so when the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is neither maintainable in its present form and nor the same has any merits because deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs is not established as discussed in detail above.

7.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.             File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 2, 2019.                                                                                                    

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                           Presiding Member

                                                                (Manisha)

                                                                  Member