BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

                                   Dated this the 23^rd day of December 2017

                                                                             Filed on : 07.02.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                  Member

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                         Member.

                            C.C.No.66/2017

                                  Between

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K.   Member 

1)     A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

         The complainant is doing pharmaceutical Distribution business at Chalikkavattom, Vennala in Ernakulam District where the internet and phone connectivities are very weak.  After a discussion with the 3^rd opposite party- The Sales Executive of Reliance Communications Ltd, the complainant in April 2015 had applied for internet and five land line connections under the Thunder Combo scheme offered by the opposite party – Reliance Communications Ltd in his business place and on 30^th April 2015 the complainant received a welcome letter mail with details and enclosure of ‘smart office user guide’.  Along with the application Form the complainant issued a cheque No90270 of IDBI Bank for Rs,2593/- dated 24.04.2015.  The above cheque was honoured on 24.04.2015.  Even without laying the cable and installation the complainant had received 4 monthly bills from the 1^st opposite party demanding from the complainant the amounts as detailed below:

        Bill dated 11.05.2015 for Rs.4280-49

        Bill dated 11.06.2015 for Rs.1150-66

        Bill dated 11.07.2015 for Rs.307-80

        Bull dated 11.08.2015 for Rs.393-25

        The complainant thereafter requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.2593/- which amount was paid by the complainant along with the application form.  The 1^st opposite party – Company refused to refund the above amount on the ground that it related to non-refundable installation fee.  This complaint is filed seeking orders of this Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.2593/- along with 12% interest thereon from the date of payment till realization of the said amount, to pay Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for the monetary loss, hardships and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with the costs of the proceedings.  

2)     Notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties filed their joint version in response to the notices received by them.

3)     Joint Version of the opposite parties 1 to 3

        It is submitted by the opposite parties that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of this case that the internet and five land-line connections were applied for by the complainant for commercial purposes.  Hence the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the 1^st opposite party had laid 500 metre cables to the business place of the complainant and due to administrative delay it took some time to get the approval from NHQ Mumbai.  But as and when the approval came the complainant rejected the connection.  Therefore the connection was not given.  It is further submitted that as when a customer submits the duly filled up customer Application Form (CAF), it is automatically updated in the on line, portal called ‘credit monitoring and donning’ and on completion of 30^th day, bill will be generated automatically and on getting information from the complainant all the bill amounts were waived off by the 1^st opposite party.  The service was terminated only on the request made by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  It is submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and this complaint is filed without any bonafides and without any cause of action, this complaint is filed only to extract money from the opposite parties.  Therefore the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of this complaint.

4)     The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

        (i)      Whether this complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(ii)      Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

(iii)     Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 2,593/- and to pay compensation for the mental agony, monetary loss and inconvenience if any, suffered by the complainant along with costs?

5)     The evidence in this case consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A18.  The opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence or any documentary evidence.

6)     Issue No. (i)

        The maintainability of this complaint is challenged by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties in their joint version contended that the internet and 5 land line connections were applied for by the complainant for commercial purposes, therefore the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is seen that the complainant also stated that the internet and 5 land line connections were applied for by him for the installation of the same in his business place since the internet and 5 land line connections we’re applied for commercial purposes with an intention to make profit.  Therefore the complainant ceased to be a ‘consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence this complaint is found not maintainable before this Forum.  The 1^st issue is therefore decided against the complainant.

7)     Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii)

        Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decided issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

8)     In the result, the complaint is found liable to be dismissed.  This complaint is dismissed accordingly.  

     Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23^rd day of December 2017.

                                                                   Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member

                                                                    Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Forwarded by Order

                                                                          Senior Superintendent

                                              APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::   

Depositions  :

          PW1  :: Polly Varghese Alapat

  Date of Despatch          ::

By Hand      ::

By Post       ::

                                        ………………………