SUDHEER KUMAR Vs. DANDA ASHOK REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of revision petition Nos. 647 of 2005 filed by the opposite parties and 780 of 2005 filed by the complainant which arise out of a common order dated 28.2.2005 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. Though, Complaint Case No. 58 of 2003 was dismissed by the order dated 12.5.2004 by a District Forum but the appeal filed by complainant against that order was allowed by the State Commission with direction to the opposite parties to provide Gemini and Teja Channel De-coders to the network of complainant within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of order and also to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages to the complainant.

(2.) Facts insofar as they are relevant for deciding both these revision petitions are these. On opposite party No. 1 being agreeable to provide Gemini and Teja Channel De-coders, the complainant paid amount of Rs. 25,000/- by a demand draft dated 9.9.2002 to get the said channel De-coders. On not providing these channel De-coders despite receipt of said amount by opposite party No. 1, the complainant filed complaint case No. 10 of 2003 against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. During the pendency of that complaint, the parties reached an amicable settlement and said channel De-coders were connected on 2.3.2003 and the complaint was, thus, dismissed by the order dated 12.8.2003 by the District Forum. The complainant towards quarterly advance paid amount of Rs. 15,000/- each on 12.3.2003 and 27.6.2003 to opposite party No. 1. opposite party No. 1 sent a notice dated 5.8.2003 to the complainant for increasing connectivity from 500 to 1500 and a necessary declaration was to be given along with subscription entry before 8.8.2003 by the complainant. It is stated that under the service agreement dated 20.2.2003 entered into between the parties the period provided for such a notice is 7 days. Opposite party again disconnected channel De-coders on 5.9.2003. Thereupon alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed complaint case No. 58 of 2003 before the District Forum which was contested by the opposite parties on the pleas which need not be referred to here for deciding present revision petitions. District Forum dismissed the complaint and appeal filed against that order was allowed by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) In Revision Petition No. 780 of 2005 the complainant seeks enhancement of the amount of damages. In Revision Petition No. 647 of 2005 the opposite parties seek setting aside of the aforesaid order of State Commission. In Revision Petition No. 647 of 2005 the submission advanced by Shri Kunal Verma for petitioners was two-fold : (i) after the amendment of definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the complainant who has been availing service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose, is not a consumer; and (ii) order under challenge could not have been legally passed by the State Commission as service contract dated 20.2.2003 which was for one year, had lapsed on 20.2.2004.