Date of Filing:18.07.2007 Date of Order: 17.03.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1507 OF 2007 M/s Aranis Business Process Service Ltd., No.4115, 19th Main, Next to Ansal Apartment, HAL II Stage, Bangalore, Represented by Mr. Baby Issac, Director. Complainant V/S Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, 18, 19 & 20, EPIP Layout Whitefield, Bangalore-66. Opposite Party ORDER By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had availed the services of the opposite party by entering into a contract and for providing internet services and ever since the services of the opposite party was availed. The complainant has encountered various problems like browsing problem, slow browsing, no connectivity, negligence, irresponsibility, not attending complaints, closing complaints without visiting our place, not collecting feedback from customer after attending the complaints etc., Because of the deficiency of the opposite party, the complainant has incurred huge loss in his business. Hence, he claims Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version stating that, the main issue is whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the opposite party has produced few citations of National Commission and has stated that the complaint should be dismissed. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? 5. Our findings to both the points are in the negative for the following:- REASONS 6. This complaint has to be dismissed on the threshold itself. After the amendment the Consumer Protection Act of 2002 the settled position of law is that if any goods or services availed for commercial purpose with intention of making profit there from than the person who was brought the goods or availed the services as the case may be is not a consumer as defined under Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Act. 7. The complainant is doing business only with the profit motive and he has nowhere in his complaint contended that the earnings by the said business is exclusively for his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant has stated that he has suffered huge loss in business because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 8. The complainant has not mentioned anywhere in his complaint that he is doing his business for his livelihood instead he has mentioned in one of his e-mails sent to the opposite party that, he has employed 200 plus persons and he has business not only in India, but in other parts of the world. It is evident from the National Commission order in II (1997) CPJ 86 (NC) and II (1995) CPJ 119(NC). From the above we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint has to be dismissed as not maintainable. If at all the complainant has any grievance against the opposite party, he has to approach the Civil Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 9. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2008. Order accordingly, MEMBER We concur the above findings. MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
