Midathara Sanyasayya, S/o Late Chinnasanyasi, Hindu, Aged 87 years, R/o D.No.26-26-52, Wood Yard Street, Visakhapatnam - 1

… Complainant

1. M/s Music World, rep. by its Proprietor, Near Dasapalla, D.No.28-2-38, Main Road, Visakhapatnam – 20.

2. M/s Bharathi Airtel Limited, rep. by its Manager, Splendid Towers, D.No.1-8-364/437/438/445, S.P. Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad – 16.

... Opposite Parties

: O R D E R :

1. The complainant is an Electrical Contractor along with his son. For that purpose on 09-06-2008, he has taken Airtel life time cell service from 1st opposite party, who is representing Bharathi Airtel Limited, 2nd opposite party and paid Rs.599/-. A sim card bearing No.899149040401354340 was given to him and he was allotted a mobile No.9701939871. He claims to have furnished required necessary documents of proof and 1st opposite party promised that the services would be activated within hours on the same day. It is further case that as sim was not activated he approached the 1st opposite party who informed him that the activation would be done within two days as the proofs were sent to the main office at Hyderabad. He pleaded that he came to know that the opposite parties misplaced the proofs submitted by him and so he again submitted his proofs on 14-06-2008 and then also it was promised that it would be activated within a day. However ultimately the sim was activated only on 21-06-2008, after repeated requests. In the meanwhile the complainant has given his new cell number to many of his customers and because of lack of communication, he lost the contract works worth Rs.50,000/-. The failure to activate the sim card within promised time is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, which caused mental suffering. Hence both the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.85,000/-.

2. The opposite parties took up a stand that the documents of proof were not furnished as on the date of purchase, which are preliminary requirements to activate the sim. It is their specific case that the sim was activated on 25-06-2008, soon after receipt of the required proofs. Thus it denied any deficiency in service and consequently any liability to pay compensation for the alleged loss.

3. At the time of enquiry, both the parties filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions and also marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.B.1. Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their respective contentions.

4. In view of the pleadings and contentions raised:

The point that would arise for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complainant is entitled for the compensation claimed.

5. The fact that the complainant applied for Airtel cell connection on 09-06-2008 and he was allotted sim number as well as the cell number, evidently, on the same day is not in dispute. Undisputedly the sim was activated only on 21-06-2008. There is not much dispute that such an activation of the sim card can be done only after the customer submits proof of residence and other documents. The complainant claimed that they were submitted on the same day that is on 09-06-2008 to the 1st opposite party and he was promised that the sim card would be activated within 24 hours. He took up a further stand that when the sim card was not activated, within a stipulated time as promised, he approached the 1st opposite party and learnt that the documents of proof were misplaced by them and hence claims that he again gave those documents on 14-06-2008. It is to be noted that the complainant inspite of denial by the opposite parties, could not place any material to show that the proof of residence and other documents were submitted by him on 09-06-2008 itself. On the other hand, Ex.A.2 letter given by the 1st opposite party would show that the documents of proof were furnished by the complainant only on 14-06-2008, which were forwarded to the 1st opposite party on 16-06-2008 and the activation was done on 21-06-2008. In the absence of any proof as to the submission of the documents on 09-06-2008 and in the light of Ex.A.2 it is to be treated that the complainant furnished documents of proof of residence only on 14-06-2008.

6. The next question is the delay of 7 days from the date of submission of documents of proof on 14-06-2008 and the activation on 21-06-2008. It is to be noted that the counters of both opposite parties 1 and 2 do not show as to the time required for activation of the sim card after submission of proof of residence and other documents. Though complainant pleaded that it was promised that within hours it would be activated, he also could not place any material in that regard. But the fact remains that cell number was allotted and was also the sim card handedover to the complainant on the very same day on of application, the only condition stipulated is that within 24 hours proof documents must be furnished in order to activate the sim card. These circumstances would clearly indicate that the sim card would be activated as early as possible soon after the submission of documents. That being so when the documents were furnished on 14-06-2008, even allowing 24 hours time to the opposite parties for verification, the sim card should have been activated by 16-06-2008 or at the most 17-06-2008. Virtually there was no explanation why the opposite parties took more than 5 days for activation of the sim card. As a matter of fact, the practice in vogue by cell operation is to activate the sim card, within 24 hours subject to further action of deactivation, if necessary. At any rate, this delay of 5 days is not explained by the opposite parties and it clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

7. Now coming to quantum of compensation claimed on Rs.85,000/-, the complainant except filing two vouchers, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 said to have been given by builders for the amount claimed to have been paid to him, did not choose to place any material to show that he lost any contract works during this period of delay in activation of the card. There is no material to show the business he used to have prior to obtaining the cell connection and after card was activated in order to assess the loss pleaded. Further at the same time there cannot be any dispute that because of this delay in providing the communication facility, inspite of payment of necessary charges, the complainant was put to inconvenience, mental agony and even probable loss of contract works cannot be over looked. Considering these circumstances, in our view, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation would be just and proper. Accordingly this point is answered.

8. In the result, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within two weeks, failing which they shall be liable to pay with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of this order till date of payment and also directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Advocate fee Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).