KUS INFONET PVT LTD Vs. VIVEK BANSAL
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-2-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 18,2014

Kus Infonet Pvt Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Vivek Bansal Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HAJIDAUD HAJI HARAN ABU VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 09.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
(2.)IN brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant provides Online Mobile Recharge from computer/mobile sets for leading Mobile Networks. It was stated that the Opposite Party contacted the complainant, at his office, and after due discussion, both the parties entered into a verbal agreement, according to which, it (complainant) was to buy flexi (stock in telecommunication field) from him (Opposite Party) against payment, and recharge the mobiles from its website http://retailer.1nefone.co.in/ home.aspx. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had been carrying out his business through two firms i.e. M/s Bansal Enterprises and M/s. D. R. Enterprises and as per its directions, the complainant had been making advance payments in its (Opposite Party) bank account, maintained with the Punjab National Bank, as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce viz. No.4075002100003945 and 12854011000086. It was further stated that there were always problems, in recharging of mobiles, as most of the numbers could not be recharged but shown, as recharged, and the balance of the complainant flexi with the Opposite Party had been deducted. It was further stated that the Opposite Party failed to furnish the details of recharges, made by him, against the payments made. Resultantly, the complainant could not claim the amounts from his customers. It was further stated that the Opposite Party abruptly closed the account of the complainant when there was still a credit balance of Rs.36,198/ - outstanding against him, as balance of such un -recharged numbers. It was further stated that the complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party, on phone, but every time, he refused to talk. It was further stated that the complainant issued a legal notice dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure C -1) to the Opposite Party, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Party to refund an amount of Rs.38,198/ - alongwith interest @18% per annum, being the credit balance, outstanding against him, pay Rs.25,000/ - as compensation for harassment and mental agony including litigation charges.
(3.)OPPOSITE Party, in his written version, took up preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant entered into a commercial agreement, to purchase flexi (stock in telecommunication field) from the Opposite Party and utilize the same for recharging mobiles of his customers for earning profits; that the complainant was not a consumer under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and that the complaint was time barred. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant entered into an oral agreement, with the Opposite Party, whereby it (complainant) was to buy flexi recharges (stock in telecommunication field) from the Opposite Party running his firm in the name and style of D. R. Enterprises, against payment, in advance, and recharge the mobiles of its customers from the website of the Opposite Party. It was denied that the Opposite Party was having Bank Account No.4075002100003945 with Punjab National Bank. It was stated that as and when the complainant used to recharge the mobiles of its customers, its advance balance lying with the Opposite Party used to get reduced proportionately. It was further stated that one of the important conditions of the oral agreement was that the complainant would have to dispose of the advance money, deposited with Opposite Party, within 40 days of deposit (Annexure R -1). It was further stated that the account of the complainant got automatically closed by the system/software, when no recharge was made for 40 days. Therefore, the complainant itself violated an important condition of the agreement. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.