Date of filing – 31.12.2013

Date of hearing – 28.03.2017

            The instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the complainant against the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 for deficiency in providing internet connection in respect of a post-paid internet service plan and against opposite party nos. 3 to 5 for their failure for an effective mechanism and to revisit the policies for better treatment of the consumers.

          In a nutshell, the Complainant’s case is that on 07.05.2013 he has purchased a post paid internet service plan from OP no.2, authorised store of OP no.1.  For the purpose of internet service, OP no.2/OP no.1 gave the complainant a data card SIM and a device for which they charged Rs.5,500/-.  The complainant states that after purchase the opposite party 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 printed receipt.  On 08.05.2013 the date card was activated and internet service was started.  On 09.05.2013 a bill was sent by email.  On 10.05.2013 interest service was suddenly disconnected and stopped by the OP nos. 1 & 2 without any intimation or message to him.  Due to such sudden disconnection, the complainant alleged that he has suffered irreparably and for such deficiencies on the part of the OP nos. 1 & 2, he has come up in this Commission with prayer for compensation of Rs.99,95,500/-.

          OP nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant stating that the reliefs claimed by the complainant are not cognizable by this Commission.  The OP nos. 1 & 2 have stated that in absence of a valid address proof and proof of residence, they could not activate the connection.  The OP nos. 1 & 2 have specifically submitted that 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.

          I have seen the pleading of the parties and the evidence led by them.  Besides complainant, only OP no.3 participated at the time of final hearing and OP nos. 1 & 2 were found absent when the record called on for hearing.  I have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Advocate for OP no.3.

          The complainant read out the vital portion of the petition of complaint and the evidence including documentary evidence and also the BNA filed on behalf of him and submitted that he run from post to pillars to post either to get service from OP nos. 1 & 2 or the refund of deposited money but he had to face extreme harassment.  He has submitted that the OP nos. 1 & 2 not only committed deficiency in services but also adopted unfair trade practice.  He has further submitted that the OP nos.3 to 5 are equally responsible because they should take appropriate measure against OP nos. 1 & 2 for adopting unfair trade practice in promoting their business.

          Ld. Advocate for OP no.3 has submitted that there was no privity contract in between the complainant and OP no.3 and as such the complaint should be dismissed against the OP no.3.

          I have given due consideration to the submission made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.  Before dealing with the merit of the case, it has to be seen whether this Commission has got jurisdiction or authority to entertain this complaint or not.  Needless to say, the jurisdiction means the authority of a Court/Forum to administer justice subject to the limitations imposed by law, which are three-fold, viz – (a) as to subject matter; (b) as to territorial jurisdiction and (c) as to pecuniary jurisdiction.  If any Court or Forum passes any order without any competence, the said order would be a nullity.  It is well settled that the question of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction has to be ascertained at the initial stage or in the nascent phase of the proceeding.  In a decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi – vs. – D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & Anr.) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the question of pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction has to be dealt with before the Court/Forum where the suit/complaint has been instituted and not in an appellate stage.

          The materials on record indicate that the complainant lodged the complaint on the allegation that he has obtained an 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 said internet service was disconnected.  It is alleged by the complainant that such disconnection has severely affected his important and urgent works.  Therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint with details of compensation, which are reproduces below –

                                          Total (Rs.)                     99,95,500/-

          In the case of Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors. –vs. – Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in I (2017) CPJ 1 (NC) the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission while discussing on the point has observed thus-

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing deficiencies in the goods purchased or the servicers to be rendered to the consumer.  Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction.  If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ....”.

          In the case beforehand, the amount allegedly spent by the complainant is only Rs.5,500/-  but he is seeking disproportionate claim of Rs.99,95,500/- so as to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of State Commission.  The above act of the appellant is obviously malafide just to defeat the hierarchy of the Forum’s concerned.

          The complainant suppressed the fact that a similar complaint was lodged by this complaint against Tata Teleservices Ltd. & 4 Ors. being CC/312/2014 and in that complaint, one application being MA/151/2015 was filed by the OP dismissing the complaint with an observation –

          “The complaint petition is hit by the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that score.  Accordingly, the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint petition is allowed.  The complaint, in the result stands dismissed”. 

          Challenging the said order, the present complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Commission by an order dated 09.07.2015 in FA/515/2015 has observed thus –

          “The present appeal is absolutely frivolous and vexatious and as such the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-“.

          The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant with malafide intention and in the language of the Hon’ble National Commission, the Consumer Fora cannot be used to extort money for unjust enrichment.

          In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the complainant by way of bank draft in the State Consumer Welfare Fund of this Commission within 30 days from date, otherwise the amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till its realisation.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Parties of the case  at once free of cost for information and compliance.