Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: H.F.C.L. Infotel Ltd. B-71, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali

  1. #1
    Advocate.sonia's Avatar
    Advocate.sonia is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    790

    Default H.F.C.L. Infotel Ltd. B-71, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

    Complaint No. 150/18.3.2008.

    Date of order: 17.3.2009.



    Narotam Ghai Advocate, resident of B-16-714/1262, Kalsian Street, Muradpura, Ludhiana and office at Chamber No.140, lawyer’s Chamber Complex, New Courts, Ludhiana.

    (Complainant)

    Vs.



    1. H.F.C.L. Infotel Ltd. B-71, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali through 1st person Incharge.



    2. H.F.C.L. Infotel Ltd. Infotel Business Solutions Ltd. Surya Tower, Upstair Ebony, The Mall, Ludhiana through its person Incharge.



    3. Corner Communications, Kalgidhar Road Corner, Field Ganj, Ludhiana.

    (Opposite parties)



    Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    ….



    Quorum:

    Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

    Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



    Present:

    Complainant in person.

    Sh. Kamaljit Chaudhary Rep. of OP No.1 & 2.

    Sh. R.K. Thaper Advocate for OP No.3.



    O R D E R

    RAJESH KUMER, MEMBER:

    1. Sh. Narotam Ghai Advocate, above noted complainant, has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against H.F.C.L. Infotel ltd. & others, seeking direction against them to pay a sum of Rs,1,06,000/- on account of deficiency in service, harassment, mental pain and agony, loss of reputation due to careless, arbitrary, irresponsible and deficient services of opposite parties no.1 &2 and to restore the service to his mobile connection no.98771-77277.

    2. Briefly stated, facts of the present complaint, are that complainant is user of Ping prepaid mobile no.98771-77277 of service provider opposite parties no.1 & 2, whose agent/dealer is opposite party no.3. At the time of subscribing to prepaid sim/mobile, opposite party no.3 obtained a photograph and self attested photocopy of driving license no.010409/REN dated 26.6.2003 of the complainant as address proof and photo ID. On obtaining all the necessary documents, mobile set along with mobile sim in question was delivered and activated. It is averred that on 11.3.2008, all of sudden the, the out going calls to sim of mobile were barred/disconnected by opposite party no.1 and 2 without any reason and cause and deprived the complainant of the use of mobile services. Hence, opposite parties no.1 & 2 acted negligently and carelessly due to which the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment and loss of reputation, for which he is entitled to recover Rs.1,06,000/- as compensation. Despite making hectic efforts by opposite party no.3, the officials of opposite partiesno.1 & 2 flatly refused to restore the mobile sIm services. Hence, the present complaint.

    3. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in the written reply admitted that complainant subscribed to mobile no.98771-77277. Averred that complainant applied for prepaid mobile connection through Prem Narain and Company, G.T. Road, Ludhiana and not through opposite party no.3 as alleged in complaint. Complainant applied to prepaid telephone connection on 9.12.2007 and as ID and residence proof submitted photocopy of Driving Lenience no.010409/REN dated 26.6.2003 and an old photograph, which did not match the photograph on the driving license. Mobile connection was activated subject to verification of documents and photographs submitted by him. As per clause 25 (D) of the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant, company reserve its right to disconnect and suspend the service in whole or at any time without any notice to the subscriber to combat potential fraud. On verification, it was found that the photograph of the complainant on the Driving license did not match the photograph submitted by the complainant, which appeared to be that of a youngman and not in accordance with the age of the complainant. When the documents of complainant were verified by Chandigarh office of the Company discrepancy was found in the age mentioned in the D.L. and the photograph of the complainant, due to which the connection of the complainant was temporary disconnected for some time during which address of the complainant was verified which was found to be correct. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to submit his recent photograph and on receipt of same, the connection was restored. The company is fully justified in following the said procedure under clause 25 sub clause (d) of the Subscriber Agreement Form which is a contract between the parties. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied. In view of the facts, detailed above, it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint be dismissed with costs.

    4. Opposite party no.3 separate reply admitted the complainant to be subscriber of mobile/sim no.98771-77277. Averred that neither the complainant has sought any relief against it nor the OpNo.3 is liable to pay any compensation. Opposite party no.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant due to their negligent, careless, arbitrary, irresponsible and deficient services, due to which business of answering opposite party has been effected adversely and liable to be compensated by opposite party no.1 & 2. Fact regarding the complainant being consumer and deficiency on the part of Opno.1 & 2 are admitted. It is also admitted that answering opposite party made frantic efforts with opposite party no.1 & 2 through their agent to remove the complaint of the complainant but opposite parties no.1 & 2 remained adamant not to restore the services. Averred that compensation be awarded to the complainant payable by opposite parties no.1 & 2 only. Rest all the assertions made in the complaint have been denied.

    5. Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and

    Documents and stood heard.

    6. From the above facts and figures, the complainant was using mobile sim no.98771-77277(Ex.CW1/2), which was activated by the opposite party. The complainant alleges that on 11.3.08, the outgoing calls to the sim of the mobile of the complainant were barred by the opposite parties and this was done without any reason assigned to the complainant, which is illegal and unlawful, as the complainant has made the full payment to the opposite parties for his mobile connection. Complainant alleged that on 11.3.08 his connection was disconnected.

    7. The opposite party argued that they want to verify the documents of the complainant and photograph of the complainant which had deposited with the opposite party is old one and not matching with the photograph on driving license for residence proof. I.e. why the connection of the complainant was disconnected and outgoing calls were barred on 11.3.08. Again, on 17.3.2008, the outgoing calls were unbarred by the opposite party. It is quite clear that if the opposite party wants to verify the credential /documents of the complainant, then this should have been done before the release of the connection and activation of the mobile no. 98771-77277. All these formalities about the complainant about his address/documents should have been verified at the time of releasing the connection as and when the complainant has submitted the application form for getting the connection. In this case, mobile connection has been activated on 9.12.2007 and again the outgoing calls were barred on 11.3.08 and again the outgoing calls were unbarred on 17.3.08. The opposite party at its own will and wishes barred and unbarred the outgoing calls of the complainant which is not genuine and caused harassment to the complainant.(Ex.R.3)

    8. As such, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment. Compliance of the order be made within one month of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.





    Announced T.N. Vaidya, President

    Dated 17.3.09

  2. #2
    Unregistered Guest

    Thumbs down Complaint against gmada

    i HAD APPLIED FOR A PLOT OF 200 YARDS IN AEROCITY MOHALI PROJECT(FORM NO. 253261).I HAD PAID AN EARNEST MONEY OF 2,40,000/- TO GMADA IN THIS REGARD.NOW GMADA ISN'T REFUNDING THE MONEY.THE DESIGNATED BANK FOR REFUND EVEN DOESN'T ATTEND CALLS.IN CASE (CHANCE ONE IN A MILLION) THEY ATTEND THEY SAY THAT IT HAS BEEN DISPATCHED,WILL BE RECEIVED IN A DAY OR TWO.IS THE MONEY COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY???????
    MOREOVER GMADA HAD PROMISED TO REFUND BY ECS(BANK A/C NO.S PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE),THEN WHY THE BANK IS NOT DOING ECS.THIS SEEMS TO BE PLAN BETWEEN GMADA AND THE BANK TO WITHHOLD CUSTOMER'S MONEY SO AS TO EARN INTEREST.

  3. #3
    msvickybhatt@gmail.com Guest

    Default Mahindra kine average & self problem

    dear sir,

    I purchase kine from mahindra on 27.03.2011. Till From that I am suffering problems in Kine. Its seat lock, self , battery, mileage everything is poor. Since that I am asking for job cards from them but till now they are not paying me the same. They are corrected the problem of seat lock and battery but they are not able to correct its average problem and starting problem. Its average is only 39km/ltr though at the time of selling they told that it will provide you 55Km/ltr avg. So please guide me what should i do & to whom i have to ask to replace it

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Blacksmith Industrial Co-Operative Society
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2009, 06:37 PM
  2. Industrial Development Bank of India
    By admin in forum Banking
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2009, 09:31 AM
  3. City and Industrial Development
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:49 PM
  4. HFCL Infotel Ltd.
    By Arvinder Pal Singh in forum Mobile Billing Problem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 10:03 AM
  5. Poor Connectivity at Mayur Vihar Phase - III
    By Unregistered in forum Land Line Phone
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 10:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •