Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President            Place : Bandra

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-  

::::: ORAL ORDER :::::

                   The Complainant is a company, which is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, whereas the Opposite party is also a company registered under company’s registration Act, 1956 which renders services of GSM Mobile Phone Connections to its consumers.  The Complainant was in need of Closed User Group (CUG) plan for more than 40 persons working in the Complainant –Company.  The Opposite party –company submitted a proposal, then there had been correspondence and the Complainant availed particular tariff plan.   According to the Complainant, the Opposite party did not activate the CUG facility, despite having received consideration paid by the Complainant. It is alleged by the Complainant that despite the correspondence, the Opposite party did not give this facility and ultimately the Complainant has filed the present complaint with the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party.

2                 We have heard Learned Advocate for the Complainant.  We have gone through the allegations in the complaint. 

3                 Admittedly, the Complainant is a company which runs business in the field of Computer. Activities undertaken by the Complainant is for earning profit.  Leaned Advocate for the Complainant submitted that through this plan no profit was to be earned and it was availed by the Company for the purpose of Company’s employees and thus the facility which, the Opposite party had agreed to provide was not for commercial purpose.  This does not enable to the Complainant to come out of the clutches of the explanation appended to section-2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant had ultimately availed this facility of running its business.  The fact that the facility was to be utilized by its employees, does not bring out any change in the situation as well as end result of the transaction.  The Complainant in paragraph no.22 of the compliant has averred that their business has suffered a severe set back as they were unable to provide the effective services to their clients.  It is alleged the business was also affected due to sudden deactivation of their employee’s SIM CARD.  These statements in paragraph no.22 of the complaint support our inference that the facility was sought for the purpose of running the business of the Complainant and thus it was for the commercial purpose.  In this regard, we rely upon Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Birla Technologies Ltd. Versus Neutral Glass And Allied Industries Ltd.  (2011 CTJ 121 Supreme Court) (CP).  In that case, the Complainant had purchased computer software from the Opposite party for the purpose of use of establishment of the Complainant –company. There was defect in the Software and after some correspondence, complaint came to be filed.  Hon’ble Supreme Court disagreed with the findings recorded by Hon’ble National Commission and held that the goods were purchased for commercial purpose.  This could be equally applicable to services availed by the present Complainant from the Opposite party.

                    In view of the above discussion, we find that the services availed by the Complainant / goods purchased were for commercial purpose and the Complainant would not become consumer within meaning of    section-2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

::::: ORDER :::::

(1)     The complaint stands summarily rejected under section-12(3) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismissed.

                   (2)     Send copy of this order to the Complainant, only.