Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/152

Naresh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vodafone South Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Singh Adv.

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 152 of 11.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   23.12.2016 

 

Naresh Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Mukesh Sweet Shop, SCF-143, Urban Estate, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.The Regional Manager, Vodafone South Limited, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali.

2.The Regional Manager, Vodafone South Limited, Head Office, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.R.S.Arora, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate

For Op2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant is running a sweet shop under the name and style of M/s Mukesh Sweet Shop, SCF-143, Urban Estate, Jamalpur, Ludhiana and he got mobile phone connections under the corporate plan i.e. Vodafone bearing Nos.96461-64700; 703;707; 708; 709, 710; 711 ; 96461-41059; 069 and 079. Some employees are working in the premises of sweet shop of the complainant and as such, the complainant distributed the corporate numbers to his employees as per requirement. Complainant created a credit limit bar to the extent of Rs.500/- for mentioned corporate number i.e.98761-64710. Complainant received bill of Rs.5463.89P for the period from 21.10.2014 to 20.11.2014 of Vodafone Corporate No.96469-64710 and that too after adjustment of the previous payment claimed as Rs.4156.62P. Complainant after receipt of the impugned bill on 27.01.2015 sent email through Sh.Davinder Aggarwal to OP with request to intervene in the matter and rectify the impugned bill. Even request was submitted not to create bar on the operation of the mobile numbers immediately, but to no effect. Thereafter, on 28.01.2015, OP sent reply through email for claiming that charges has been correctly claimed as per the usage for the calls. OP did not rectify the impugned bill, despite repeated emails. Rather, OP forced the complainant to deposit the alleged amount and complainant had to do that. That payment was made by the complainant without any fault on his part. It is claimed that unnecessary harassment and mental torture of the complainant is done by the OP and that is why, he sent legal notice dated 12.02.2015 through counsel for calling upon Ops to refund the excess amount of Rs.4156.62P. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to pay punitive damage of Rs.3 lac and even costs of proceedings.

2.                 Op1 submitted written reply by claiming that the complaint does not disclose the cause of action and the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents regarding proprietorship of the sweet shop. The sweet shop in whose name the mobile connections obtained failed to pay the outstanding dues towards the usage of the connections taken in the CUG facility and as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed. Besides, it is claimed that legally complaint is not maintainable because the connections were obtained for promoting business interest and that is why the connections were provided to the employees working in the sweet shop. Allegations of causing mental harassment and agony along with other allegations specifically denied. Complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as “Act”). Computerized bills were generated by OP1  according to the usage of the said    mobile connections for the outstanding dues, but due to non-payment of the same, operation of the connections barred. As per usage, computerized detailed bills of amount of Rs.5463.89P was generated, but it is denied that in the said bill, previous payment claim was of Rs.4156.62P. Rather, the previous balance shown in the bill was of Rs.502.73P.  Emails sent by the complainant were duly replied by the officials of Ops, but despite that the complainant failed to clear the outstanding dues of billing charges resulting into barring of the services. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case.

4.                Complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of Sh.Naresh Gupta, Proprietor along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ashutosh Kalia, Deputy General Manager of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

7.                 It is pleaded case of the complainant that corporate Vodafone mobile connections obtained by the complainant for business purposes and those were distributed amongst the employees working under the complainant. So, from these allegations, it is made out that 10 corporate mobile connections obtained by the complainant for promoting the business interest. As and when services availed for commercial purposes, then complainant concern will not be a consumer, particularly when it is not pleaded that the said services availed for running business for earning livelihood. In this case, it is also at all not pleaded that corporate mobile connections were obtained for running business for earning livelihood and as such, complainant is not a consumer. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in cases Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.); Torent Power Limited vs. Virma Devi-I(2014)CPJ-162(Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) and R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.). Ratio of all these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, keeping in view the fact that corporate mobile connections were purchased for promoting the business interest or for carrying on commercial activities, it is held that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

8.                Even in case of General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan and another-III(2008)CPJ-71(S.C.), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, due to which, remedy under the Consumer Protection Act by implication is barred. In the case before us, the dispute raised regarding billing amount and as such, complainant has his remedy available under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and not before this Forum. Being so, complaint is not maintainable, particularly when the complainant raising the dispute regarding bills despite use of the phones qua which connections obtained.

9.                Perusal of bill Ex.R1 shows as if Rs.510/- were received on 10.11.2014, but Rs.800/- on 17.11.2014 and Rs.500/- on 25.10.2014, despite the fact that the bill was of amount of Rs.5463.89P. In view of this detail, submissions advanced by Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate representing OP1 has force that part of the bill amount alone paid, due to which, OP was having no other option except to discontinue the services of the mobile phones in question. So, deficiency in service on the part of   Ops even cannot be inferred.

10.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                         (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:23.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.