Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Kanwar Amrinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he is law abiding citizen and is dentist by profession and running Dental Clinic namely White Pearl Dental Clinic at Sultanwind Road, New Kapoor Nagar, Opposite Kanwar Palace, Amritsar and this is only source of income and livelihood of the complainant. The complainant availed internet facility from Opposite Party in the month of March, 2015. The complainant is regularly paying the bills for the use of internet facility being availed by him  and the complainant never gave any chance of any complaint to the Opposite Party. On 13.4.2016 the said internet connection stopped working and  to this effect, the complainant registered a compliant with Opposite Party vide complaint No. i5530023 on 14.4.2016 and the Opposite Party assured the complainant that the fault will be removed within 4 hours from the time of complaint. It was utter surprise to the complainant, when the Opposite Party failed to remove the fault within assured period  and thereafter, the complainant made several phone calls to Opposite Party for the rectification of the fault. Since the date of complaint being moved to Opposite Party, till date no person on behalf of Opposite Party came to the working area of the complainant to remove the fault. The complainant also moved another compliant on the pretext of non receiving of bills and the Opposite Party issued complaint No. 27823089 to the complainant on his complaint on 8.4.2016, but no action was taken by the Opposite Party  to this effect. The complainant deals with patient and needed to update and upload data in regard with same regularly to Vipul Medcorp TPA Private Limited company, but due to negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant is suffering loss, harassment and mental agony besides suffering loss to profession. As such, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant to the complainant. The rejection of the claim by the Opposite Party clearly shows the malafide intention, deficiency & negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.55,000/- for the deficiency besides suffering mental agony and harassment at the hands of the Opposite Party. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

a)       Opposite Party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.55,000/- for the loss occurred to the complainant in his profession due to non working of the internet connection.

b)      Compensation of Rs.20,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant for the harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by  him.

c)       Costs of the complaint worth Rs.5000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence this complaint.        

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the Opposite Party. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present  complaint as the complainant does not fall under the category/ definition of ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant in his complaint himself has mentioned that he is suffering professional loss due to disconnection of his connection, it clearly shows that the internet connection  has been used by the complainant in his business premises and as such, the present complaint before this Forum is not legally maintainable. Since the internet connection  has been used by the complainant for his business purpose, hence the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act;  that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against Opposite Party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs; that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the Opposite Party; that the answering Opposite Party submits that the complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case and to get undue benefit from the replying Opposite Party, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party with malafide intention; that the matter in dispute has already been compromised in between parties. In the month of June, 2016 there was outstanding amount of Rs.2016/- and as per settlement arrived, the amount of Rs.1648/- has already been deducted from the total bill amount as waiver and the balance amount has to be paid by the complainant. But with malafide intention, the present complaint  has not been withdrawn by the complainant so far.  On merits, the  facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence, his  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has vehemently contended that it is not disputed that the complainant obtained internet connection  from the Opposite Party in March, 2015 and enjoyed this facility uptill April, 2016. But in April, 2016 the internet connection stopped working and the complainant got  registered a complaint with Opposite Party vide complaint No. i5530023 on 14.4.2016. On receipt of the complaint, the Opposite Party promised to remove the fault within 4 hours from the time of complaint, but to the   utter surprise to the complainant, no official from the Opposite Party visited the spot for removing the fault. The complainant again moved another application on the pretext of non receiving of bills, on 8.4.2016, but no action has been taken by the Opposite Party  to this effect. Since the Opposite Party has failed to remove the defect of internet connection, the complainant has suffered professional loss to the tune of Rs.55,000/- besides that the complainant has also suffered mental tension and harassment at the hands of the Opposite Party. It is contended that the Opposite Party may be directed to pay Rs.55,000/- for loss occasioned to the complainant in his business due to  non functioning of his internet connection, besides compensation for mental tension & inconvenience to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  and costs of litigation  amounting to  Rs.5000/-.

7.       But however, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the internet connection  was got installed by the complainant from the Opposite Party in his premises for his professional work. Although the complainant has averred that he has been using the internet connection  for earning his livelihood, yet no account of the concern of the complainant has been brought on record nor any list of employees, annual turn over or income tax returns have been produced  to show that the complainant was actually using the internet connection  for earning his livelihood. Besides that the contention of the complainant that he  has suffered loss of Rs.55,000/- w.e.f. 13.4.2016 uptil the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 21.4.2016, shows that the complainant has been running a big commercial concern. The business run by the complainant can not be termed to be a vocation carried by the complainant for earning his livelihood. As such, the complainant does not fall within the purview of term ‘consumer’ as defined under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

8.       Not only  that, it has come on record that the matter stood compromised inter se parties in the month of June, 2016 i.e. during the pendancy of the present complaint. There was outstanding  amount of Rs.2016/- and as per settlement, the amount of Rs.1648/- has already been waived from the total bill amount and the balance amount has to be paid by the complainant. Since, the complainant has accepted the compromise arrived at inter se parties and the waiver has already been availed by the complainant and as such, he has impliedly admitted the settlement so arrived  inter se parties and the complainant is estopped by  his own act and conduct from pursuing the present complaint in Consumer Forum. The complainant can not derive double benefit i.e. one  from mutual settlement & the other through the court by maintaining  the complaint.  The very fact that  the complainant has failed to bring to the notice of the Forum that a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, shows that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. A party which approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to  the discretional relief from the Court.

9.       From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the complainant has not been able to prove that he is a ‘consumer’ as per definition given in section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the parties have already arrived at compromise and the matter stood settled inter se parties during the pendancy of the present complaint. As such, the complainant is debarred from pursuing the matter before this Forum. Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 09.09.2016.