Delhi

East Delhi

CC/216/2018

N.N. MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VODAFONE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 216/18

 

Shri N.N. Mishra

Director

Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology

A-27, Gali No. 2, Madhu Vihar,

Delhi – 110 092                                                         ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.

Shop No. D-110, Vikas Marg

Laxmi Nagar, Block S2

Lalita Park, Shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Nodal Officer

Vodafond Mobile Services Ltd.

C-48, Full Building, Okhla Industrial Area

Okhla Phase II, Delhi – 110 020                              …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 16.07.2018

Date of Order: 08.10.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

ORDER

            This complaint has been filed by Shri N.N. Mishra against Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (OP-1) and Nodal Officer of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd,. (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

            The facts in brief are that complainant Shri N.N. Mishra, Director of Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology have stated that they have 13 numbers of corporate connection of Vodafone mobile services limited in the name of M/s. Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology, out of which his mobile no. 9891649000 was having        i-Roam free facility to overseas countries, so called auto-roam.  He being a frequent flier to many different countries for his business meetings used the same phone number while abroad by taking policy of auto-roam. 

          He had gone to Johannesburg (South Africa) via Mauritius on 27.05.2018 and reached Mauritius at 2p.m.  He stayed at Mauritius and next day (28.05.2018 at 9.15 a.m.) took the departure flight to Johannesburg.  During his visit at Johannesburg (South Africa), his phone was suspended due to the total billed amount Rs. 60,085.47/- and during his visit he was forced to deposit Rs. 15,000/- to continue the services which he deposited and his phone was unbarred after two days.

          He has further stated that the usage charges for this number, has been mentioned as Rs. 47,120.89 which may be internet charges due to international roaming.  He was in Mauritius during the said period for which the charges have been levied.

          He has also stated that in a press note, published in the Economic Times, it was mentioned that i-Roam free facility was provided to 40 countries including Mauritius.  It was further stated that there was a statement of their CEO stating that their 4G customers will now be able to roam seamlessly on high speed 4G partner networks while travelling overseas in over 40 countries.  They have introduced i-Roam free facility, offering free incoming calls, Rs. 1/- for all international and local outgoing calls and data at Rs. 1/MB in over 45 countries on a daily basis. 

          He was denied this facility and his phone number got disconnected not only in Mauritius, but in his South Africa travel without prior information.  His several phone calls and mails requesting them to waive all the charges have gone waste. 

          He has stated that by not paying the dues of Rs. 60,085.47, the service provider will suspend the services of his mobile number 9891649000, that’s why he paid the said amount to continue the services.    

          He has also stated that due to his stay at Johannesburg, his phone was suspended due to wrong billing and he has lost business of Rs.15,00,000/-.  Thus, he has prayed for reimbursement of        Rs.15,00,000/- as business loss + Rs.60,085.47, billed amount              + Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges which comes to an amount of        Rs.17,70,000/-.       

 

Heard on admission. 

            The first and foremost point which arises for consideration in the complaint has been as to whether the complainant has been “Consumer” or not.  It has been argued by the complainant that he comes within the definition of “Consumer” as he has been the user of mobile no. 9891649000 which has been issued in his name. 

            To ascertain as to whether by making use of a corporate connection, the user comes within the definition of “Consumer” or not, a look has to be made to Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder.  The same reads as:-

Section 2(1)(d) “consumer means any person who, -

 

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

 

2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

           

            In the present case, the relevant clause of Section 2(1)(d) is Clause (ii) which is with regard to hiring or availing of any service for a consideration. 

            A bare reading of this clause shows that a person who hires or avails any service for a consideration comes within the definition of “Consumer”, but a person who avails such services for any commercial purpose will be excluded from that.  Commercial purpose has been explained in the explanation put to Section 2(1)(d) which says that “commercial purpose” does not include a person who avails the services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.  “Self employment necessarily includes earning for self.  Without earning generally, their cannot be self employment”. 

            On the touch stone of this, it has to be seen as to whether complainant Shri N.N. Mishra, Director, Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology was a “Consumer” or not.

          If his complaint is perused, it is noticed that M/s. Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology have 13 numbers of corporate connection of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited out of which mobile no. 9891649000 have been allotted to the complainant being a director. 

          In the first paragraph of the complaint, he has stated that he has been a frequent flier to many countries for his business meetings and he used to use this number while abroad.  To quote from this para “Since I am a frequent flier to many countries for my business meetings and always use the same phone number while being abroad”. 

          Further, in the last paragraph of his complaint, he has stated that he has lost approximately a business of Rs. 15,00,000/-.  Again to quote from this para “Since during our visit at Johannesburg (South Africa) my phone was suspended due to wrong billing and I was loose those client to whom I was fixed the meeting and due to suspension of our phone I lose approx. a business of Rs. 15 lakh”.    

            The Vodafone bill, which have been placed on record shows that the connection has been in the name of Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology.  Thus, from the averments made in the complaint, it comes out that Institute for Industrial Research & Toxicology have    13 number of corporate connection out of which one of them i.e. mobile number 9891649000 have been used by complainant         Shri N.N. Mishra, who is said to be a Director of the institute. 

          When the nature of the connection is a corporate one, mere use by complainant Shri N.N. Mishra, Director of the institute will not convert this connection into a personal connection.  Not only that, his averment in the complaint that he being a frequent flier to many countries for his business meeting show that the connection has been used for commercial purpose which takes the complainant out of the definition of “Consumer” as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no averment in the complaint that he has used this connection for self employment, but on the contrary, he has categorically stated that he has used this connection for his business meetings. 

          Not only that, he has claimed a business loss of                     Rs. 15,00,000/-.  When he has used the connection for business meetings and have claimed a business loss of Rs. 15,00,000/-, he cannot say that he was a consumer as provided under the definition of Consumer.  Therefore, his plea that he was a consumer does not sustain. 

          Thus, his complaint cannot be admitted which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- which be deposited with the Legal Services Authority of East District at Karkardooma Court Complex.  The amount be deposited within a period of 30 days.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President