Date of Filing:21/05/2014
Date of Order:15/02/2016
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated: 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.SC., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.906/2014
LACLASSIC (RK REGENTS HOTEL)
No 58, Yadavanavanahalli village
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore 562107. …Complainant
V/s
Reliance Communications
No 12, Subramani Arcade
Tower B, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-29. …Opposite Party
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant in person has filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred in short as O.P) for facing interrupt communications on the service of the O.P. and prays for direction to the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is running a LACLASSIC (RK Regents Hotel) at Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. The grievance of the complainant is that he has obtained the land line and internet connection to his hotels rooms, whereas the hotels is facing interrupt communications average three to four times in a month. Hence the complainant send enormous mail and telecommunications reminders to the O.P. for rectification, but the everything went in vain and the problem is not rectified immediately. From 5th April 2014 on wards the complainant have continuous issues approximately 16 to 18 hours of telephone and internet and they have understood that, when they have KEB power cut then the issue is on and they do not have any facility of standby power to enable the connections and hence the big company called Reliance not given the fruitful service to the client. Hence the complainant suffered losses. Around 450 rooms nights approximately and also four major banquet bookings losses accured. The customers are using their websites holding fliers and used to call the landline number and could not get connected due to interrupt communications. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P. appeared through its counsel and filed its version. O.P in his version contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts and filed the same without any cause of action. The complaint is vague without any details. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. The O.P. contended that, the complainant is running a hotel business and not using network for personal use, it is purely a business organization and hence contended that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant hotel is a four star luxury hotel which includes Health Club, Book Shop, Spa Services etc. The complainant did not produce any satisfactory evidence to show that, they are using the service of the O.P. since 40 months and also not produce any documents to show that they have suffered from the service of the O.P. The complaint is filed without disclosing the term and conditions of the services and on other grounds the O.P prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. To substantiate the above case, both the parties have filed their respective affidavit evidence along with documents. We have heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our considerations are:-
(A) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
(B) Whether the complainant proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(C) Whether the complainant is entitled to the
relief prayed for in the complaint?
(D) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) : In the Negative.
POINT No.(B) & (C): In the Negative.
POINT (D): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT (A):-
7. At the outset it is not in dispute that the complainant is running the hotel under the name and style of LACLASSIC (RK Regents Hotel) at Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. It is also not in dispute that the complainant obtained the land line and internet connection from the O.P.
8. The grievances of the complainant is that, due to interruption of internet service the complainant suffered loss and inspite of the request and reminders the O.P. did not turn to rectify the interrupt services. However, the O.P. by filing his version contended that, the complainant is not a consumer.
9. On perusal of the Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, it reads thus:-
(d) “Consumer” means any person who,-
(i) buys any goods 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 user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any service 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 payment, 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];
10. On reading the pleading of the parties in the light of the above definition, it is obviously that the complainant is running the hotel business under the name and style of LACLASSIC (RK Regents Hotel) at Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. As per the saying of the complainant there are around 450 rooms nights approximately and also four major banquet bookings losses occurred. Hence, obviously on going through the entire complaint there is a face of commercial activity. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is excludes from the domain of the Consumer Protection Act. In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant is not a consumer. Accordingly, we answered Point No.(A) in the negative.
POINT No.(B) & (C):
11. As we noted supra while answering Point No.(A) it is an establish fact the complainant is running the hotel business having other facilities. The complainant is not brought in the pleadings what are all the defects occurred and only contended that, interruption of the service. More so, the complainant not produced any cogent evidence to establish the fact interruption of the internet services and also examine any witnesses. Furthermore, the complainant not discloses how much income is earning per day by making use of the alleged internet services. The complaint is lack of complete material. It is worth to note that, based on the grievance of the complainant it is also not possible to decide the case in the Consumer Fora within a time bound proceedings. The complainant ought to have approached the competent Civil Court as it requires voluminous evidence. Viewing from any angle the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and hence he is not entitled for the any relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered these points are in the negative.
POINT (D):
12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 15th Day of February 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
