Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant to be a tool to attempt wrong gains or to create ‘nuisance value’

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member, dismissed an appeal with costs filed against the order of State Commission whereby his claim for deficiency of services, against the respondents, was rejected.

The appellant had purchased a postpaid internet connection from the respondent company for a sum of Rs 5500. As per the appellant’s story, the internet connection was activated and he used the internet services for a period of 2 days after which the services were discontinued by the respondent company without any intimation. However, refuting the claim of the appellant, the respondent asserted that in the absence of a valid proof of residence, the internet services were never activated for the appellant.

The main question that arose before the Commission was whether the respondent company was liable for deficiency in services under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Commission observed that the appellant had purchased the connection for Rs 5500 and the amount claimed by him in the form of compensation was highly disproportionate i.e. Rs 99,95,500. Further, the Commission observed that the appellant had previously filed a similar complaint against Tata Teleservices Ltd. which was found to be frivolous and vexatious, for which a cost of Rs 10,000 was imposed on the appellant. The Court observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant to be a tool to attempt wrong gains or to create ‘nuisance value’.

The Commission held that the appellant had filed a frivolous case against the respondent company and that he was attempting to misuse the statutory processes provided for better protection of the interest of consumers to attempt wrong gains and to create ‘nuisance value’. Hence, the Commission dismissed the appeal and a cost of Rs 500 was imposed on the appellant for filing a frivolous case and abusing the process of law. [Uttamkumar Samanta v. Vodafone East Ltd., First Appeal No. 847 of 2017, order dated 05-08-2018]