Complaint no. 113 of 03.03.2008. Date of Order 03.12.2009.



Jasbir Singh son of S.Didar Singh, aged 34 years, resident of H.No.6908., Street No.12, Durga Nagar, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana (Punjab).

…..Complainant.
Versus

1. M/s.Capricorn Two, 396, Industrial Area-A, Near Hotel Zoom, Ludhiana through its Prop./partner.

2. M/s.Bharti Telecom Ltd., Regd. Office 5-H/12, Kutub Ambience, Mehrauli Road, Delhi-110030 through its Managing Director.

3. Area Manager/Manager, Circle office C-25, Industrial Area, Phase II, SAS, Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), 160055.
…..Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President

Smt.Priti Malhotra, Member.

Present: Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh. Nipun Gupta, Adv. for opposite parties.

O R D E R



PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

Complainant was holder of post paid mobile connection no.98159-71785 since April-May, 2004. That connection was operated by OP no.2 & 3 and was sold to the complainant by OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1, who carries on retail office. Complainant was using the connection right upto 8,.12,2007 when he opted for pre-paid mobile connection instead of postpaid one and paid Rs.630/- as fee for one year to OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 and delivered to him relevant documents namely voter card, identity card etc. OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 was to deliver the amount alongwith documents to OPs no.2 & 3 who were to make available prepaid connection to the complainant, which they did. But only for about two months and after which they disconnected the services on the plea that documents which were necessary for the complainant to deliver alongwith sum of Rs.630/- had not been received. Complainant again submitted those documents to OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 on 08.02.2008 and OP also issued a receipt in this regard. But the connection was not revived by OPPOSITE PARTIES NO.2 & 3, inspite of repeated demands. Complainant claims that his disconnected services be reactivated and the OPs be directed to pay the damages for the grouse cause on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him.

2. OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 has been proceeded against exparte.

3. Opposite parties no. 2 & 3 in their written statement has taken defence that mobile connection can not be revived unless the documents which were to be accompanied with the amount of Rs.630/- are delivered to them. They have also raised preliminary objection that there was an agreement between the parties to the effect that “only Mohali courts will have the jurisdiction in case of any dispute”.

4. In order to prove his case complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents in support of his case. No evidence of OP 2 & 3 is on record and OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 was proceeded against exparte.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the file, scanned the documents and their material on record.

6. So far as the preliminary objections raised by OPPOSITE PARTIES NO.2 & 3 are concerned, it has to be rejected for the simple reason that the so called agreement has not been produced.

7. On merits, claim of the complainant has been allowed. Because the complainant has produced the receipt dated 08.02.2008 i.e., Ex.C2 according to which, he had delivered the documents in question to OPno.1. Thus, it is presumed that some transaction had been undergone between the parties, which resulted in the issuance of the receipt by OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed to activate the said connection, within seven days. We hold OPs jointly and severally liable for the harassment and mental agony to the complainant and thereby they are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- for the loss caused to the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony. The order to make payment of cost be complied within 20 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record.