Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member and Ms. Meena Verma Member
GAURAV SOOD EVEREST TOURS AND TRAVELS - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED - Respondent
First Appeal No. 232 of 2016
Decided on : 02-06-2017
None, for the Appellant; Mr. Navlesh Verma Advocate, for the Respondents
An individual obtaining services for commercial purposes as an employee may not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Telephone Connection Dispute - Section 15 - [12, 2(1)(d)] - The court dismissed the appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, affirming the order of the Learned District Forum. The court held that the complainant, who obtained the telephone connection for commercial purposes as an employee of a company, did not fall within the definition of a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging non-operative telephone connection and seeking relief for mental torture and monetary loss. The complaint was dismissed by the Learned District Forum, and the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant, being an employee of a company, obtained the telephone connection for commercial purposes and did not fall within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Issues: The determination of whether the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted and the final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, as an employee obtaining the telephone connection for commercial purposes, did not meet the definition of a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the Learned District Forum, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs before the State Commission.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 23.05.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in Consumer complaint No. 44 of 2015 title Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant namely Gaurav Sood filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant obtained telephone connection No. 2658972. It is pleaded that telephone of complainant remained non-operative. It is pleaded that complaint was lodged with opposite party but opposite party did not remove the defect despite complaint. It is pleaded that complainant also served notice through speed post to the opposite party. Complainant sought relief of Rs. 50000/- (Fifty thousand) with interest @ 18% per annum for causing mental torture and causing monetary loss.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that telephone of complainant no. 2658972 remained partially non-operative due to fault of underground cable during the period 07.01.2015 to 13.01.2015. It is pleaded that complainant was informed about the nature of fault. It is pleaded that defect was removed on dated 13.01.2015. It is pleaded that telephone of complainant was disconnected temporarily on 20.03.2015 due to non-payment of bills dated 03.02.2015, 03.03.2015, Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. 03.04.2015 & 03.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 3563/- (Three thousand five hundred sixty three). Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. None appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of arguments before State Commission. State Commission decided to dispose of appeal on merits. State Commission heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and State Commission also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite parties illegally and without any notice disconnected the telephone connection of deponent which was in use for the last six years. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone was used by Gaurav Sood v. General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. deponent for his convenience, for allied internet facilities and for his pharmacist trade. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as pharmacist in firm Punjab Coal Company near bus stand Shimla for the last seven years. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone stopped working and matter was reported to the opposite parties. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has suffered immense mental harassment as his trade as pharmacist suffered and deponent was deprived of internet knowledge concerning his pharmacist job.
8. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Sanjay Kashyap Divisional Engineer posted in the office of GMTD BSNL Shimla. There is recital in the affidavit that there was partial disruption in the service of telephone. There is further recital in the affidavit that telephone was disconnected temporarily on 20.03.2015 due to non-payment of bills dated 03.02.2015, 03.03.2015, 03.04.2015 and 03.05.2015 amounting to Rs. 3563/- (Three thousand five hundred sixty three). There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant was informed through IVRS system for payment of pending bills.
9. Complainant has himself admitted in the affidavit that he is working as Pharmacist in the Firm Punjab Coal Company near bus stand Shimla for the last 7 years. Gaurav Sood
