Delhi

South Delhi

CC/748/2005

HVM NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE INFOCOMM LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/748/2005
 
1. HVM NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED
295 SHAHPUR JAT, NEW DELHI 110049 THROUGH HARSHVARDHAN MODI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. RELIANCE INFOCOMM LIMITED
17-18 DDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX PANCHASHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI 110049
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
none
 
For the Opp. Party:
none
 
Dated : 10 Apr 2017
Final Order / Judgement

     

                                          Harshvardhan Modi           Vs.               Reliance  Infocomm Ltd.

 

Case No.748/2005

10.04.17.

Present :- None

          None has been appearing on behalf of the parties since 12.01.2016.

The Complaint pertains to the year 2005

Pleadings and the evidence are complete.

Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the parties.

Therefore, we proceed to decide the case.

Complaint has infact been filed on behalf of H.V. M  Network Pvt. Ltd.  through its Managing Director, Sh. Harshvardhan Modi.  The complaint is with regard to providing three mobile telephone connections to the complainant company by the OP.

In the reply, the OP  has inter-alia stated that as per its own  admission the complainant M/s HVM Network Pvt. Ltd had subscribed the mobile phone connections in question for commercial usage.   According to the OP the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

In the rejoinder the complainant has not denied the fact that the three connections in question were not taken for the commercial use. 

In their respective affidavit the complainant and Sh. Ajay Singh AR of the OP have repeated their respective contentions.

It is evident that the three connections were in fact taken by M/s HVM Network Pvt. Ltd. for commercial use and not for the personal use of its Directors.  Hence, the transaction in question being a commercial transaction the complaint goes outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act since the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the said Act.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint on this ground alone.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. N K GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.