Complainant M/s.Lakhbir Construction, through its Sole Prop. Inderbir Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to adjust or refund the bill amount paid by him and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him as he had suffered mental agony and physical harassment by the act and conduct of the opposite party, in the interest of justice.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he is using ten corporate numbers of opposite parties carrier from past six years. He is using one number which is 8872978686. He had received a bill of Rs.7371.94 dated 23 December 2015 of this number. He had used a service of 3G Pack 300 Mb which is of Rs.98/- on the abovementioned number. He used internet service on this number till 300 MB Data, after that the internet should be stopped by the opposite parties as the pack which was installed in his mobile number had reached the limit. Then he approached the opposite party no.2, he was directed to send email of waiver to

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts and is false, frivolous and untenable in laws and is liable to be dismissed; the complaint is vexatious, baseless, misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law; the mobile number 8872978686 alongwith other mobile numbers were issued to M/s.Lakhbir Construction in the category of Corporate Connections on 24.11.2010 by the opposite party no.1. Mr.Lakhbir Singh signed and fulfilled the requisite formalities as a Partner and Authorized Signatory of the said firm; The aforesaid number in dispute was issued to M/s.Lakbir Construction which shows that the said number is being used of a commercial purpose. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are inapplicable in respect of any commercial activity other than for self-employment and for earning an individual livelihood. The purchase order submitted by the Firm clearly establishes that the mobile numbers purchased by the firm were for its employees.  Complainant has nowhere pleaded that the firm had purchased all the mobile numbers from the opposite party no.1 exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self employment or for self use. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant M/s.Lakbir Construction had received a bill of Rs.7371.94 dated 23.12.2015 of the number 8872978686 and the complainant had used a service of 3G Pack 300 Mb which is of Rs.98/- on the above mentioned number. It was denied that complainant used internet service on this number till 300 MB data, after that the internet should be stopped by the opposite parties as the pack which was installed in complainant mobile number had reached the limit. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.          Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has been received back with the report of ‘Refusal. Case called several times during the day but none had come present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte.

5.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Manoj Madan Ex.OP-13 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-12 and closed the evidence.

7.         We have carefully examined all the documents/ evidence produced on record for their respective statutory merit and have also duly heard & fully considered the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants. We find that the present complaint prompted at the alleged failure (amounting to deficiency in service) on the part of the OP service providers to satisfactorily cater to the service- needs of the complainant firm who have hired ‘in usage’ the 10 nos. of the corporate connections from the titled opposite parties.

8.       We find that the OP1 service providers have appropriately raised the primary first objection as to the maintainability of the present complaint on the grounds of admitted ‘commercial purpose’ usage of the ‘10’ connections by the complainant firm’s staff for its in-routine business propagation. Moreover, the proprietor of the complainant firm while putting forth the present complaint has not submitted the requisite ‘certification’ confirming that he works to earn a living through self employment so as to fall into the definition/ category of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 in order to attain eligibility to file the present statutory complaint. Presently, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very count, alone.

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint does not fulfill the statutory pre-requisites to attain the requisite ‘maintainability’ under the Act and thus we ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs. The complainant shall also be at liberty to seek any/all appropriate but legal relief as per his choice/ available advice and proceeded in law as per the procedure prescribed in law.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

October,14 2016                                                              Member

*MK*