Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/96/2019

Krishan Lal Nain S/o Shri Bhiya Ram Nain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone Idea Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vizzy Agarwal

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 96 /2019

 

Krishan Lal Nain s/o Bhiya Ram Nain Designated partner, Kaytele Infracon LLP, Head office C 28 Keshav Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (earlier known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.) 5^th floor, Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 26.7.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr. K.K.Bagri -Member

 

Mr. Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the complainant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint is filed on 31.5.2019 with the contention that complainant holds a postpaid mobile connection bearing no. 9413377307. A sim is issued by non-applicant no.1 to the complainant. The complainant is also a designated partner in Kaytele Infracon LLP. This firm has a OD account with non-applicant no.2 IDBI Bank. The complainant has registered his mobile connection no. 9413377307 with non-applicant no.2 for net banking. On 25.5.2017 the SIM in above mobile connection become in-operational and complainant was informed that SIM had got corrupted. He applied for new SIM which was issued and it has also been assured to him that it would activate in half hour but it was not activated for five days and only on 31.5.2015 it was activated. On activation of the SIM the complainant came to know that Rs. 68,50,000/- were withdrawn from his OD account vide six transactions between 26^th May to 29^th May. He reported the matter to the cyber crime police station and also came to know that new SIM has been issued on his mobile connection no. 9413377307 from Vodafone Store at Alwar in violation of instructions and guidelines issued by the Deptt. Of Telecommunication and bank is also deficient as he fail to act in consonance with RBI circulars and money has not been re-

3

 

paid to him inspite of the fact that he was not at fault.

 

It has also been pleaded in the complaint that he is a customer. He is having Over Draft account but transaction is not a commercial one and account is maintained for earning his livelihood. It has also been pleaded that during course of investigation amount of Rs. 37,44,000/- is recovered hence, he has limited his loss only to Rs. 31,06,000/-. Compensation and cost of proceedings were also asked.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

 

It is true that the mobile connection stands in the name of the complainant but it is more than clear that transaction for which deficiency is pleaded is in relation to Over Draft account which is commercial in nature.

 

The contention of the complainant is that he is not working for any profit but the only relief which is pleaded is re-payment of the loss and deficiency is in relation to commercial account i.e. Over Draft account, the complainant

4

 

does not fall in the category of consumer and consumer complaint is not maintainable.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is not maintainable and stands dismissed at admission stage.

 

(K.K.Bagri ) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm