The service provider must prove that a service was utilized for commercial purposes; absent such proof, a consumer retains protections under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the State Commission, Bhopal, in First Appeal No. 1132 of 2017, whereby State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant purchased and activated a sim card from authorized dealer of the respondent for his personal and business use. The sim card purchased by the petitioner had defects in connectivity wherein repeated cross-connection of calls, call drop network issues etc, were faced during ongoing calls, and connectivity of ongoing calls with other calls, and intermittent hearing of indecent voices and conversations were happening in the background at the time of an ongoing call. Petitioner contacted the dealer of the respondent company a number of times, who advised him to make complaint on the Airtel customer care. Despite multiple complaints, respondents failed to address the queries and issues. Petitioner further sought redressal at the Jhabua office of the respondents, where, instead of resolving the technical deficiency, petitioner was advised to change his handset. On 29.10.2014 petitioner filed an RTI to the Airtel Company branch, Indore requesting for certified copies of his call records and also to provide a log of the multiple complaints lodged regarding cross-connections and network failures, but no response was received by the petitioner. Getting no redressal of his grievance, petitioner sent a legal notice dated 08.02.2015 stating that respondents were unable to provide efficient services and were unable to resolve their queries and petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jhabua seeking compensation for mental and physical torture, monetary loss and litigation costs. District Forum, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the services of the respondents were utilized for carrying out business and that services for commercial purposes fall outside the jurisdiction of the fora under the Consumer Protection Act. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the District Forum, Jhabua (M.P.), is reproduced below:

“4. Affidavits and documents such as a notice letter (Article P-1) sent to the opposing parth through their lawyer, postal receipts (Article P-2 and P-3), an application under the Right to Information Act 2005 (Article P-4), a letter from Sou Bhagya Carpets, Ratlam (Article P-5), reports and action taken documents obtained under the Right to Information Act 2005 from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, District Jhabua (Article P-6 to P-11), bills from Shree Maheshwari Traders, Indore (Article P-12), John Trading, Indore (Article P-13), Sunrise Tractors, Indore (Article P-14), Ajay Machinery Stores, Indore (Article P-15 and P-16), M.S. Agencies, Indore (Article P-17), Tractors Bill (Article P-18), Anand Sales Corporation, Indore Bill (Article P-19), brochure of the Joint Youth Introduction Convention (Article P-20 and P-21) and the Anti-Virus Security Code document (Article P-22) have been submitted.

5. According to the complainant, they are involved in the hardware business, where they contact and negotiate with other traders outside Bamania and Jhabua to book and procure goods. The complainant was provided with the active SIM card of opposing party number 2, but it was not functioning properly and was unable to provide services. On making calls,, other cal