S.Majumder, Member.

This appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I, on 15.07.2008 in its case no- 267/2004, wherein the Ld. Forum below has dismissed the complaint on contest without cost being not maintainable.

The facts of the case of the Complainant before the Forum below were that the Complainant took a mobile phone connection in the year 2003 from the OPs and paid Rs.5000/- as per the terms and conditions of the plan for connection charges. The payment was made on 10.02.2003 and on the same date the Complainant issued 12 numbers of post-dated cheques of Rs.1800/- each as per the direction and instruction of the OPs. At the end of March or early April, 2003 the OP handed over the phone to him. The bills were of a number of 033-31028193 instead of mobile phone no- 033-31028222. The Complainant made several correspondences with the OP for rectification of the number of the mobile phone as well as the bills. Correction was made in the month of February 2004 and a bill amounting to Rs.7363.24/- was issued in favour of the Complainant wahich was exorbitant in the estimation of the Complainant. The Complainant paid bills but the OPs continued to demand more amount without giving detail statement which the Complainant always demanded through fax and correspondences. The telephone was installed in the month of April, 2003 and it was disconnected on 24.07.2004 for non-payment of exorbitant charges as demanded by the OPs. The grievance of the Complainant was that inspite of giving bills sent by the OPs, the OPs deprived him from getting the facilities of the service. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint before the District Forum praying for relief and reconnection of the mobile phone.

Being dissatisfied by the above-mentioned order the complainant–appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission contending the same facts as stated by him in the complaint before the Ld. Forum below. According to him the judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below being erroneous and illegal is liable to be set aside and has prayed for allowing this present appeal.

The OPs being the Respondent herein took the plea that the case is not maintainable as the complainant appellant has availed of the facility of the mobile phone for business purpose not for earning his livelihood but for enhancing the business which he runs. According to the Respondent the judgment passed by the Forum below be liable to be suspended and has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

On careful consideration of the record it is evident from complaint filed by the Complainant before the Forum below that he took the mobile connection for his business purpose, to enhance his business.  There is no averment made by the Complainant that he took the mobile phone connection for the purpose of earning his livelihood or for his personal use. As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ‘commercial purposes does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment’. Having regard to the aforementioned Act we are of the clear view that the Complainant-Appellant does not fall in the category of consumer in terms of (2) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 as he hired the service of the OPs for business purpose as he himself contended in the petition of the complaint.

Going by the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below does not suffer from any irregularity and infirmity and hence we are not inclined to interfere in it. Accordingly it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest without any cost and the judgment passed by the Forum below be affirmed. With the above observation the appeal be disposed of.