1. We heard the appellant – complainant in person and learned counsel for respondent no. 1 – OP no. 1, and perused the material on record. 2. This first appeal was filed by the appellant – complainant against the Order dated 12.04.2017 of the State Commission, whereby his consumer complaint was dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The complainant’s case was that on 07.05.2013 he purchased a post paid internet service plan from OP no. 2 (Vodafone Store), authorised store of OP no.1 (Vodafone India Ltd.). OP no. 2 / OP no. 1 gave the complainant a data card SIM and a device for Rs. 5,500/-. OP nos. 1 & 2 never informed him that all transactions are final and no refund would be made. On payment of Rs.5,000/- on 07.05.2013, they issued him a printed receipt. On 08.05.2013 the data card was activated and internet service was started. On 09.05.2013 a bill was sent by email. On 10.05.2013 internet service was suddenly disconnected and stopped by OP nos. 1 & 2 without any intimation or message to him. Due to such sudden disconnection, the complainant suffered irreparably and for such deficiencies on the part of the OP nos. 1 & 2 he prayed for compensation of Rs. 99,95,500/-. OP nos. 1 & 2 disputed the claim of the complainant. They stated that in the absence of a valid proof of residence they could not activate the connection. The connection was availed by the complainant on 08.05.2013 and the first address verification was made on 09.05.2013 and as the complainant was not residing in the given address, the connection was not activated. 4. During arguments before the State Commission the complainant submitted that the OP nos. 1 & 2 not only committed deficiency in service but also adopted unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the OP nos. 3 to 5 (Secretary Government of India Department of Telecommunications, Chairperson TRAI and Secretary Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs) are equally responsible because they should take appropriate measures against OP nos.1 & 2 for adopting unfair trade practice in promoting their business. 5. The State Commission inter alia observed that: The complainant lodged the complaint on the allegation that he had obtained internet service from OP nos. 1 & 2 on 07.05.2013 and for that he paid a sum of Rs.5,500/-. Immediately after installation, the internet service was disconnected. It was alleged by the complainant that such disconnection severely affected his important and urgent works. Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint with details of compensation as below: Serial No. | Reasons and cause of claims | Amount of claim (Rs.) | 1 | Illegally and arbitrarily stopping of service | 10,00,000/- | 2 | Huge loss to petitioner for intentionally cut
down of service by the respondent | 39,00,000/- | 3 | Mental agony and harassment, pain and suffering | 15,00,000/- | 4 | Loss of various important engagements/ appointments, meetings of petitioner | 10,00,000/- | 5 | Fraudulent and cheating activities of respondent for denying everything to the petitioner | 7,00,000/- | 6 | Repeated attempt to breach petitioner’s privacy | 5,00,000/- | 7 | Intentionally making false reports in an attempt to waste petitioner’s time, energy, resources and denial of services | 5,00,000/- | 8 | Identity theft and breaching petitioner’s privacy | 8,00,000/- | 9 | Miscellaneous expenses including legal, travel etc. | 90,000/- | 10 | Device cost | 5,000/- |
Total (Rs.) 99,95,500/- The amount allegedly spent by the complainant was only Rs.5,500/- but he sought disproportionate claim of Rs. 99,95,500/- so as to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of State Commission. Earlier a similar complaint by this complainant against Tata Teleservices Ltd. & 4 Ors. being CC/312/2014 was dismissed. The complainant preferred an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission vide its Order dated 09.07.2015 in FA/515/2015 observed that the appeal was absolutely frivolous and vexatious and as such dismissed it with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 6. After appraising the present case, the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 12.04.2017 dismissed the instant complaint on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the complainant in the State Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization. 7. We note that the aggregate amount paid for the internet service (stated by the complainant himself) was Rs. 5,500/-. He sought compensation of Rs. 99,95,500/-, which was on the face of it disproportionately high (and just marginally below the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission). We also note that the component-wise break-up of the total compensation of Rs. 99,95,500/- (reproduced in para 5 above) was, again, on the face of it unreasonable and albeit absurd. We further note that the complainant impleaded Secretary Government of India Department of Telecommunications, Chairman TRAI and Secretary Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs as OP nos. 3, 4 and 5, which was totally unnecessary and unwarranted in the facts and specificities of the case. We furthermore note that the complainant had earlier (mis) used consumer fora in similar manner against Tata Teleservices Ltd & 4 Ors. and appeal in that case was dismissed as absolutely frivolous and vexatious with cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the National Commission. 8. We find the State Commission’s impugned Order cannot be faulted, on the preliminary ground of pecuniary jurisdiction itself (there is no need for us to proceed further). 9. It is clearly evident that the complainant is attempting to misuse the statutory processes provided for for better protection of the interest of consumers to attempt wrong gains and to create ‘nuisance value’ qua the OP nos. 1 to 5. 10. The appeal is clearly frivolous as well as vexatious. It is also to be seen that the time and resources of this Commission have been wasted in such manner and for such evident purpose. It is thus appropriate and albeit necessary to give stern advice of caution to the complainant through a monetary deterrent ( / cost), to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for better protection of his interests under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (The Act 1986 is not meant to be a tool to attempt wrong gains or to create ‘nuisance value’.) 11. But we also note that complainant is a well educated person, holding a doctorate, who prepared tomes and tomes of paper, in a misplaced and irrational approach towards consumer justice through the machinery of consumer fora. He is perhaps (more) to be sympathized with, (more) to be counselled and advised, rather than censured (alone). We hope and wish that the complainant realizes the follies of his misplaced and irrational approach, and channelizes his knowledge, time and resources for self-progress and public-good. 12. In the totality of the case, it is felt just, apt and reasonable that a token cost of Rs. 500/- shall be deposited by the appellant – complainant with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within four weeks. 13. We hold that the complaint was not maintainable in the State Commission (ref. section 17(a) of the Act 1986). The impugned Order of the State Commission is upheld and sustained on the preliminary ground of pecuniary jurisdiction (we need not and have not gone further). 14. This appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/- (as directed in para 12 above). |
