RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. MOHD HAIDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 25.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1404/2015, Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. Mohd. Haider, has been challenged in the present revision petition, vide which, the order dated 25.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sriganga Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 278/2015, was upheld, vide which, the said complaint filed by the present respondent was ordered to be partially allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Mohd. Haider stated in his Consumer Complaint No. 278/2015, filed before the District Forum Sriganga Nagar that he was carrying on the business of selling fire crackers to earn his livelihood and to maintain and feed his family, he had the requirement of two attractive mobile numbers for publicity of his business to earn livelihood, upon which, he contacted several mobile companies. On 30.04.2003, two agents of the petitioner company contacted him and offered to provide some attractive mobile numbers. He bought mobile number 9300000000 and 9024000001 and supplied all documents to the said agent and made payment of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- in cash to the said agent. Having bought the above mobile numbers, he was given an assurance that the sims shall be activated immediately. The complainant printed the said numbers on pamphlets, issued by him, concerning his business with the expectation of getting booking orders on the occasion of festivals, marriage parties etc. He contacted the company many times for activation of the mobile numbers, but the OPs did not activate the same due to which, he suffered huge loss in his business. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking direction to the OPs to activate the above mobile numbers, or in the alternative, to return the amount taken from him. He also sought a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs from the OPs towards mental and financial hardship and Rs. 5,100/- as litigation costs.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Company by filing written reply before the District Forum, in which, they mainly stated that the consumer fora had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint as the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there was no deficiency in service on their part. They also stated that the complaint should have been filed before appropriate authority under Section 7(b) of the Telegraph Act. The OPs also stated that the complainant had not produced any valid receipt as proof of making payment of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 4,000/- to the Company in respect of the sim cards. Moreover, the complainant had failed to prove as to which documents he had supplied to the alleged agents of the OP Company. Moreover, the complainant had not given the names of the agents, who contacted him for sale of the sim cards. The OP stated that the consumer complaint should be dismissed being misconceived.