Per Shri P.B. Joshi, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          Complainant Nos.1&2 are subscribers of Vodafone Mobile Services since July 2007 under the Family Plan where intra calling is not charged.  Till March 2008 bills were properly generated; 3 in the name of complainant No.1 and other one bill in the name of complainant No.2.  In April 2008, name of complainant No.2 was changed to complainant No.1 without any written authority or intimation from either of the complainants.  Matter was vigorously followed but there was no response from the opponent for the particular bill though in the following month it was effected.  Again about three years later in June-July 2011 similar change took place and despite repeated follow-up there was no response from the opponent.  In the subsequent cycles, all the bills were generated in the name of complainant No.2 till the bill for cycle ending 24/10/2011.  On 08/11/2011 required change was effected and was confirmed through telephonic call and email.  However, while verifying the bill, for the cycle ending 24/11/2011 again name of complainant No.2 was changed to complainant No.1.  That has adversely affected the claim of reimbursement of complainant No.2 and credit of service tax of complainant No.1.  It is because of that complainants have filed consumer complaint against opponent and claimed Rs.50 Lakhs for inconvenience and loss of business and reputation and mental stress involved therein.  Complainants prayed for Rs.49,94,271/- for repetitive nature of offence committed by the opponent.  Complainants also claimed cost of litigation amounting to Rs.5,729/-.

2.       Opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version.  Opponent has not disputed that complainants are the subscribers of their services and have admitted that there were errors of name in the bills.  However, those errors were rectified.  It was contended that complainants are not coming under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’ in short) as the services were availed for commercial purpose.  Opponent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering the record, considering the submissions made before us and keeping in view the scope of complaint, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted as against them for the reasons herein below :-

REASONS

3.       Point No.1:- Opponent has contended that from the complaint itself it is clear that services of the opponent were being used by complainants for commercial purpose and hence, complainants are not consumers.  After perusing the complaint, we find that it is mentioned in the complaint that because of deficiency on the part of the opponent in providing services, there was loss of reputation of complainant No.1 and also affected the business of complainant No.1 adversely.  It is also material to note that in the prayer clause, complainant has claimed damages for loss of business and on other counts such as mental stress, inconvenience, etc.  It is material to note that when opponent in its written version has raised contention about use of services for commercial purpose, which does not fall within the ambit of the Act, the complainants by way of rebuttal to the affidavit of opponent contended that there was only one number in the custody of complainant No.1 and hence, there was no exclusive use of number for commercial purpose and therefore, explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act becomes inapplicable.  It is material to note that for recital of the complaint and even from the rebuttal affirmation of complainants, it is clear that services of opponent were being used by complainant No.1 for commercial purpose.  No doubt it is mentioned that there was no exclusive use of the number for commercial purpose.  Thus, it is very clear that complainant No.1 was using the services of opponent for commercial purpose and for domestic purpose.  The fact remains that complainant No.1 was using the services for commercial purpose and hence, he is not a consumer within ambit of the Act. 

4.       As far as complainant No.2 is concerned, there is no recital in the complaint to show that she was using the services for commercial purpose.  Even it is not the contention of the opponent that complainant No.2 was also using the services for commercial purpose.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 accordingly.

5.       Point No.2 :-  It is the contention of the complainants that while issuing bills of the four numbers there was change of name of complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 without any written information or instructions from the complainants.  In view of finding on Point No.1, we cannot consider the claim of complainant No.1.  Question remains about complainant No.2.  We have already referred above the recital in the written version, where the opponent has admitted that there was error of names while issuing bills.  However, those errors were rectified.  Without dilating more on the point on how many bills name was changed and when mistake was corrected, the fact remains that there was mistake on the part of opponent while issuing bills in mentioning name on the bills and afterwards mistake was rectified.  Thus, we find that there was deficiency on the part of opponent.  Hence, we answer Point No.2 in the affirmative.

6.       Point No.3 :- It is material to note that complainants have claimed Rs.1 Crore as damages.  The complaint was filed by two complainants.  We have already concluded that complainant No.1 is not a consumer.  Hence, question remains only of complainant No.2.  Though complainants have mentioned that change in the name of bills affected adversely the claim of reimbursement of complainant No.2, actual loss on that count is not mentioned in the complaint, probably, because that may be very meager amount.  It is further material to note that, that amount was not claimed in the complaint.  The amounts claimed in the complaint are only on the counts of loss of reputation, mental stress and inconvenience.  Considering the facts of the case, we find that claim of Rs.1 Crore on these counts is not tenable at all.  No doubt, as discussed above, there was deficiency on the part of the opponent while providing services to the complainant No.2; we find it proper to grant some amount of compensation for inconvenience and mental stress suffered by complainant No.2.  We find that amount of Rs.10,000/- will be just and proper compensation on that count.  We also find it proper to grant cost of this litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/- to complainant No.2. Hence, we answer Point No.3 accordingly.

7.       Point No.4 :-  In view of answers of Point Nos.1to3, complaint deserves to be dismissed as far as complainant No.1 is concerned and complaint deserves to be partly allowed as far as complainant No.2 is concerned.  Hence, we pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.Complaint as far as complainant No.1 is concerned, stands dismissed as not tenable. 

2.Complaint as far as complainant No.2 is concerned, is partly allowed.

3.Opponent is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to complainant No.2 on account of inconvenience and mental stress suffered by complainant No.2.

4.Opponent is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to complainant No.2 on account of costs of this litigation.

5.Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 12^th December 2014.