DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB    : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

 Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday, the 27^th  day of September 2024

CC. 237/2019

Complainant

Marconi Networks and Telecom,

Represented by its authorised officer,

                        Muneer. P.M,

42/826, Mariyambi building,

Above Union Bank of India,

Cherootty road, Kozhikode – 673 032.

Opposite Parties

1.            Vodafone Idea Ltd,

Ground floor VJ Tower,

Service road Vytilla,

Ernakulam, Kochi.

2.             Jaswant IDEA Store,

Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode,

Kerala.

3.              Reghunath,

Collection Service Manager,

Vodafone Idea,

Nikkarathil Chambers,

Mini Bye Pass Road,

Thiruthiyad, Kozhikode – 673004.

(OP1 and OP3 By Adv. Sri. Syam Padman)

ORDER  

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant is a firm, having office at Kozhikode. The complainant had taken 9 mobile connections from the first opposite party, out of which, 5 were having international roaming facility. All the above said connections were disconnected by the first opposite party alleging failure to pay subscription. The second opposite party, the authorised dealer of the first opposite party, had collected the subscription, but failed to recharge the IR pack connections along with other connections. This was neither noticed by the complainant nor intimated by the second opposite party. Only two out of the 5 IR pack connections were activated and the rest of the 3 IR pack connections and other 4 connections which are not having IR remained inactivated by the first opposite party despite paying the entire bill amount. The third opposite party did not take any positive action to reinstate the connections and to reduce the bill. The first opposite party had demanded to pay huge amount towards the bill. The complainant has sustained huge loss on account of the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to reinstate the mobile connections and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

3. The first and third opposite parties have entered appearance and filed petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint. No written version was filed. However, they have participated in the proceedings.      
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?                                                                                                                                              2) Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as                     alleged?                                                                                                                                                                                                3) Reliefs and costs.
5. PW1 was examined on the side of the complainant. PW1 is the power of attorney holder of the complainant and has deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Exts B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the first and third opposite parties. Ext B1 is the copy of the customer application form and Ext B2 is the copy of the request letter.
6. Heard. Both sides filed argument note.
7. Point No 1:   The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 3 has argued that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no consumer dispute as contemplated under the Act and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. On the other hand, the complainant has argued that the complaint is maintainable and pointed out that the mobile connections were not intended to earn profits or advance the business activity of the company.
8. As per Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a person who buys  any goods or avails of any services for consideration is a consumer. But the word consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or who, in the case of service, avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
9. Ext B1 and its enclosure contains 6 mobile numbers in a cluster. As per Ext B1 the owner of the 6 mobile numbers in the cluster is the company by name Marconi Networks and Telecom Ltd. The owner of 6 mobile connections mentioned in the complaint is the company and it is seen that the mobile connections are used for commercial purpose. This is admitted by PW1 in the cross examination. PW1 has admitted that the mobile connections were used by the company for commercial purpose and that the same are inevitable for the business of the company in India and Dubai and if the mobile connections are not there it would adversely affect the business. Further it is pleaded in the complaint that huge loss was faced by the company due to inactivation of the mobile connections.
10. According to Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods or avails the service for any commercial purpose. The section clearly says that the person who obtains such goods or hires or avails of service for consideration for any commercial purpose shall not qualify as a consumer. In the instant case, the mobile connections are taken for being used in activities directly intended to generate profit for the company. The same has close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity of the company. The mobile connections were used by the company for commercial purpose and hence, according to us, the complainant company is not a consumer as contemplated under Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no consumer dispute  as contemplated under the Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. Point is answered against the complainant. 
11. Point No. 2: Since the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable on that count, this point does not arise for consideration.
12. Point No. 3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.                

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 27^th  day of September, 2024.

Date of Filing: 27/07/2019

                           Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-                                                            PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                               MEMBER                               

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

NIL

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

Ext B1 - Copy of the customer application form.

Ext B2 - Copy of the request letter.

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  -   JINESH .P.B  (Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL                                    

                    Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-                                                                PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                               MEMBER                               

APPENDIX

          Nil         

                                                       True Copy,                                                                    

                                                                                                                                           Sd/-                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                     Assistant Registrar.