IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 582-2010 DATED 19.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> Complainant Kaveesh Gowda, Secretary,<br /> M/s Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vidya Vikas Education Trust (R), 127-128, Alanahally, Lalithadripura Post, Mysore-Bannur Road, Mysore-570010.<br /> (By Sri J.P., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. M/s Bharati Airtel Limited, Maruthi Infotech Centre, 11/1, 12/1, Block A West Wing, Koramangala Inner Ring Road, Amarjyothi Layout, <br /> Bangalore-560071.<br /> 2. Mr.Shivaprasad.G., B2B City Head M/s Bharati Airtel Limited, Mysore.<br /> 3. Mr.Nayaz Ahmed Khan, Channel – Manager, B2B and Town Manager, Mysore.<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 15.07.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 19.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant had filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in telecommunication service. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint and the material on record, we heard the learned advocate for the complainant regarding admissibility and maintainability of the complaint. Also, we have perused the records.<br /> <br /> 2. Now, we have to consider, whether the complaint is admissible and maintainable?<br /> <br /> 3. Our finding on the point is in negative, for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant is an Educational Institution. It made an offer of business proposal to the opposite party. Commercial offer from the opposite party, contained specifications as to proposed plan and other requirements. Complainant accepted the offer of the opposite party company and work order was issued for installation and commissioning Airtel Internet Leased Line and Port Services. Considering these facts alleged in the complaint, first of all, it is necessary to consider, whether the complainant is a consumer. Definition of the consumer is given in section 2(1)(d)(ii). The relevant portion for this case reads as under:<br /> (ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose);<br /> (Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “Commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;).”<br /> <br /> 5. The explanation will not help the complainant. Thus, if the service availed for any commercial purpose, then said person is not a consumer. In the case on hand, in the 2nd paragraph of the complaint, specifically it is alleged that, the offer of “Business proposal” of the opposite party company was accepted by the complainant. In the middle of the paragraph, further it is stated that, “the commercial offer from the opposite party……….”. In Annexure-A, the subject mentioned is “commercial offer”. On 12th page also, there is mention as “Commercial proposal”. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the service offered by the opposite party is for commercial proposal and hence, the complainant is not a consumer. In this connection, also it is relevant to note that, in the complaint at the end of 2nd paragraph, it is stated that, the installation offered by the opposite party company to the complainant was to be used by atleast 300 students and in the 8th paragraph of the complaint, also it is stated, the service of the opposite party was for the benefit of the student, stake holders and staff of the institute. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer and on this ground only, the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 6. Learned advocate for the complainant relied on the ruling reported in II (1993) CPJ 674. Wherein Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Commission has held that, typewriter purchased for his own institution, is not for commercial purpose. Firstly, in that case, the complainant was running his own typing institution and in view of that fact, it is held that, the typewriter purchased, is not for commercial purpose. But, in the case on hand, such are not the facts, noted in the earlier pargraph. Secondly, the said ruling is of the year 1993, whereas in the definition, the word “but, does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose” has been inserted vide Consumer Protection Amendment Act 2002. Hence, the ruling is of no use for the complainant. Then, the learned advocate relied on another ruling reported in IV (2003) CPJ 147. In that case, the complainant had sent cloth for dying and treatment, which was not properly processed and in view of said fact, Hon’ble National Commission has held that, the opposite party was rendering service. Hence, this ruling also will not help the complainant. Moreover, at the cost of repetition, in the complaint, admittedly it is alleged that, it was commercial offer, which we have mentioned in the earlier paragraph in detail. Hence, this ruling also will not help the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. It is alleged in the complaint that, the opposite parties have not completed the work order issued by the complainant. The relief sought by the complainant is to direct the opposite parties to adhere to the commitment of installment and completion of the work order. Considering the entire facts and the material on record, in substance as alleged by the complainant, opposite parties have committed breach of contract and hence, the question would, whether such grievance could be entertained and decided by the Consumer Forum? In the prayer column, further complainant has alleged, opposite party has caused loss of reputation of the complainant and also, breach of trust and for this, damages of Rs.15,00,000/- is claimed.<br /> <br /> 8. So also, the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2010 SC 90 has held that, telecommunication disputes are outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.<br /> <br /> 9. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not admissible and maintainable. Hence, we pass the following order. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 19th July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />