APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  28^th   SEPTEMBER  2016

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The impugned order dated 25.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1404/2015, Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. Mohd. Haider, has been challenged in the present revision petition, vide which, the order dated 25.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganga Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 278/2015, was upheld, vide which, the said complaint filed by the present respondent was ordered to be partially allowed.  

2.      The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Mohd. Haider stated in his Consumer Complaint No. 278/2015, filed before the District Forum Sriganga Nagar that he was carrying on the business of selling fire crackers to earn his livelihood and to maintain and feed his family, he had the requirement of two attractive mobile numbers for publicity of his business to earn livelihood, upon which, he contacted several mobile companies.  On 30.04.2003, two agents of the petitioner company contacted him and offered to provide some attractive mobile numbers.  He bought mobile number 9300000000 and 9024000001 and supplied all documents to the said agent and made payment of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- in cash to the said agent.  Having bought the above mobile numbers, he was given an assurance that the sims shall be activated immediately.  The complainant printed the said numbers on pamphlets, issued by him, concerning his business with the expectation of getting booking orders on the occasion of festivals, marriage parties etc.  He contacted the company many times for activation of the mobile numbers, but the OPs did not activate the same due to which, he suffered huge loss in his business.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking direction to the OPs to activate the above mobile numbers, or in the alternative, to return the amount taken from him.  He also sought a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the OPs towards mental and financial hardship and Rs. 5,100/- as litigation costs. 

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company by filing written reply before the District Forum, in which, they mainly stated that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint as the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there was no deficiency in service on their part.  They also stated that the complaint should have been filed before appropriate authority under Section 7(b) of the Telegraph Act.  The OPs also stated that the complainant had not produced any valid receipt as proof of making payment of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- to the Company in respect of the sim cards.  Moreover, the complainant had failed to prove as to which documents he had supplied to the alleged agents of the OP Company.  Moreover, the complainant had not given the names of the agents, who contacted him for sale of the sim cards.  The OP stated that the consumer complaint should be dismissed being misconceived. 

4.      The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, passed their order on 25.08.2015, stating as follows:-

  “10.   Thus, by allowing the complaint of the complainant against the respondents, following reliefs are being granted in his favour:-

1. Respondents are directed that they must activate the SIM mobile no. 9300000000 and 9024000001 which were sold to the complainant within one month.If due to some technical difficulty, it is not possible to activate these two mobile numbers, then amount paid for the above SIMs will be paid by the respondents to the complainant from the date of receiving the amount i.e. 30.04.2013 alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum till the date of actual payment.

2. Respondents are also directed that they also pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental hardship suffered by the complainant and Rs. 3,500/- towards cost of proceedings.”

            

   5.      It is clear from above that the District Forum gave directions to the Company to activate the said sim cards within one month and in case of any technical difficulty to do so, they were directed to return the amount paid for the sim cards alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.  In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was ordered to be given as compensation for mental hardship and Rs. 3,500/- as litigation cost.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the petitioner Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

    

   6.      During hearing, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant did not fall under the definition of the Consumer as stated in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as the sim cards had been taken for commercial purpose only.  The learned counsel also stated that they never received payments for the sim cards in question.  Further, it was their duty to carry out the necessary verification of the particulars given by the complainant before the sim cards could be activated.  Since the complainant did not come forward for verification, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

    

   7.      I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

    

   8.      A perusal of the order recorded by the District Forum reveals that the complainant produced copies of the counter slip of two forms before the District Forum, upon which the sim numbers were duly mentioned and it was also stated that amounts of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- had been received in cash.  The District Forum observed that the respondents nowhere stated in reply that they had no agents for selling sims by visiting the spot.  The respondent also did not state anywhere that the forms given by the complainant were forged.  The District Forum came to the conclusion that the sim cards had been taken by the complainant by making payment of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/-, but the same had not been activated.

    

   9.      The District Forum, vide their order, simply directed the respondent to activate the said mobile numbers within one month.  They also stated that in case, it was not possible to activate the same due to technical difficulty, the amount received from the complainant should be given back to him with simple interest @ 9% per annum.  In addition, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,500/- as litigation cost.

    

   10.    The order of the District Forum has been examined in appeal by the State Commission, in which they observed that if the agent had not deposited the form with the petitioner, it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant also.  The State Commission also found that there was no justification to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal before them.

    

   11.    Considering the facts and circumstances in the case, it is clear that the petitioners have not been able to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the said sim cards have not been activated so far.  The complainant has given specific numbers in his complaint and the petitioners have nowhere denied that the sims carrying the said numbers were not made available to the complainant, or the said numbers do not belong to them.  Of course, it is obligatory on the petitioner to carry out the necessary verification as per the procedure laid down, and they should have done so, rather than indulging in unnecessary litigation.  During the course of arguments also, it was discussed that the petitioner could have called for the necessary information from the complainant and carried out the necessary verification and should have activated the sims, only after the verification was carried out.  If the verification could not be made, the amount realized from the complainant should have been paid back to him with interest, as directed by the District Forum.  However, the petitioner does not seem to have taken any steps in this regard.

    

   12.    Further, the complainant has made it clear in his complaint that he is carrying on the business of selling fire crackers to earn his livelihood and to maintain and feed his family.  It shall, therefore, be wrong to agree with the contention of the petitioner that he does not fall under the definition of consumer.

    

   13.    Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below and the same are upheld.  This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed, being without any merit.  There shall be no order as to costs.