Order No. 03/14.02.2019

            Today is the date of passing order for admission of the case.

            We heard the Complainant through Ld. Advocate. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Complainant told during presentation for admission that the Complainant had faced much loss of business due to bad conversation and communication to people. Here, we got hints that the case might involve business transaction for which the Complainant suffered loss. At para 3 of the Complaint, it is stated, inter alia,’when there has any conversation or communication with other peoples on mobile number above noted regarding business dealing of your Complainant However, great loss of business has been suffering by your Complainant since many times.’

At para 7 of the Complaint, it has been stated, inter alia, ‘That your Complainant has been suffering from great loss of his business dealings on his mobile phone due to above said service of unfair trade practice and deficiency with negligence of  service provided by above named Opposite Party’

It needs to be mentioned that the Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- at para 11 for reasons, inter alia, great loss in business dealings on the said mobile number due to said negligence of service faced by the Complainant.

Therefore, it is clear that such uses of the phone/internet service is on commercial transaction and the Complainant seems to carry out business. There is no whisper in the Complaint that the Complainant earns his livelihood by adopting business on self-employment. So, The Complainant appears to have suppressed material facts in the Complaint. A person carrying out business transaction for commercial purpose does not come within the purview of the definition of consumers and cannot avail of the benefit of exclusion clause of ‘commercial purpose’ given under Explanation undersection 2 (1) (d).

While praying for huge amount of compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- the Complainant did not give any break up of loss or did not substantiate the prayer of compensation.

It is also the settled Principle of Law that when a Complainant comes with uncleaned hands (Suppressing material facts), he cannot deserve the benefit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

At Complaint para 1, the Complainant stated that he has been using his Vodafone mobile number 8442924528 since long time. If the OP appears to be so deficient causing Complainant’s great loss, how could he use the said connection of the OP since long time? If in the email of the OP to Complainant’s mobile phonethere was any assurance of upgradation of internet service and actually the quality was not improved, the Complainant had sufficient option to cut off the connection. On the face of records, there is no distinct deficiency of service for which the Complainant got affected and suffered loss. It is also to be noted that the Consumer Forumsare not distribution centres of dole and the Complaints must have strong logic for admission of the case. We decide cases on the Principles of Natural Justice, applicable to both sides.

In all the counts stated herein above, the Complaint is not a fit case to be admitted. So, the Complaint is not admitted.