Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/317/2017

Rakesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

3S Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	317 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	06.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	27.10.2017

 

 

 

 

1]  Rakesh Singh s/o Sh.Jagat Pal, R/o H.NO.109, G.F. Golden Enclave, Lohgarh, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar. Mohali, Punjab.

2]  Jagtar Singh s/o Niranjan Singh Sodhi, R/o H.No.160, Sodhi Farm, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.     

                               …..Complainants

Versus

1]  3S Telecom, CHF 52, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

2]  Idea Cellular, Circle Office: C-105, Phase-7, Industrial Area Mohali, Punjab.

3]  Idea Cellular, Regd. Office: Suman Tower Plot No.18, Sector No.11, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat.

4]  Dena Bank, Patiala Road, Near Gurudwara, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 

                      ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER

                               

Argued by :    

Complainant in person.

Defence of OP No.1 struck off vide order 11.10.2017

Sh.Rameet Bakshi, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

Sh.Mahadev Singh, Adv. for OP No.4.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainants No.2-Jagtar Singh is user of Idea/Cellular Telecom Network bearing Mobile No.85678-00007. It is averred that complainant No.2 sent complainant NO.1 to make payment of his bill amount of Rs.1800/- and complainant NO.1 paid the said amount of Rs.1800/- to OPs No.2 & 3 through his ATM-cum-Debit Card on 24.11.2016 and the said amount has also been debited from the account of complainant No.1.  However, despite making the payment of bill, the OPs No.2 & 3 stopped the outgoing call service of complainant NO.2 on his mobile phone and when contacted, they told that the amount swiped by complainant NO.1 has not been credited in their account, therefore, the complainant No.2 has to pay the amount in cash.  As such, the complainant on 5.12.2016 again paid the bill amount of Rs.1800/- to OPs NO.2 & 3 against receipt Ann.C-2.  It is submitted that the complainants enquired from the bank about the said debit card transaction, whereupon the Opposite Party Bank vide letter Ann.C-4 informed the complainants that the transaction is successful as per Rupay.  It is also submitted that the despite the successful transaction made through Card, the OPs did not refunded the excess received amount of Rs.1800/-. Alleging the said act of the OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 initially put in appearance through Sh.Satinder Sigh, Proprietor, but later on neither filed reply/evidence despite several opportunities nor appeared, hence the defence of Opposite Party No.1 was struck off vide order dated 11.10.2017.

 

         The Opposite Parties NO.2 & 3 (Idea Cellular) filed joint reply stating that the complainant No.1 is neither a subscriber nor a user of the said mobile number and therefore, has no locus standi to file the present complaint against answering Opposite Parties. It is stated that complainant No.2 ported into the network of answering Opposite Party on 17.4.2015.  It is stated that the complainant No.2 Jagtar Singh, who is the actual customer of answering OPs has not signed the complaint and has also not deposed on oath the averments of the complaint. It is submitted that the payment was not credited into the account of the answering Opposite Parties.  It is also submitted that on account of government’s demonetization move in the country, which led to a surge in digital payments, the banking system faced turmoil and therefore, as and when the amount of Rs.1800/- was credited to the account of answering OPs i.e. on 9.12.2016, the same was credited into the account of the complainant No.2, who is a customer of answering Opposite Party and he was given due benefit of the same which is reflected in the bill dated 08.01.2017 (Ann.OP-2&3/3). Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs NO.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party NO.4 has filed short replying stating that the ATM Card operated by the complainant was successfully swiped as per Rupay, so the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount from answering Opposite Party. Denying other allegations, the Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OPs No.2, 3 & 4 and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]        In the present complaint, the complainant NO.1 has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he is not the subscriber of the telecom services of OPs. 

 

6]       It is the allegations of complainant NO.1 that he had to pay twice the amount of Rs.1800/- in order to satisfy the bill raised by the OPs for the connection raised in favour of complainant No.2, who is the subscriber of OP Company. He averred that an amount of Rs.1800/- paid through Card was initially declared to have not been credited in the accounts of OPs for which he had to pay another Rs.1800/- in cash under pressure of disconnection of mobile services in question.

 

7]       From the perusal of the reply filed by the present OPs, it is clear that the disputed amount of Rs.1800/- has duly been adjusted in the accounts of the Complainant No.2, who is subscriber of OPs No.2 & 3 and now nothing is due to be adjusted in accounts of complainant No.2.

 

8]       The complainant No.1 has not brought on record any cogent evidence to counter the submissions made by OPs No.2 & 3 in their reply qua the adjustment of Rs.1800/- paid in excess in the account of complainant No.2.  The complainant No.1 also failed to brought forward any evidence in counter to Annexure OP-2 & 3/3 (filed by OPs No.2 & 3) wherein the Opposite Parties have shown that they have given the adjustment of Rs.1800/- in the bill of complainant No.2.

 

9]       In our opinion the complainant No.1 was required to enquire about the adjustment made by OPs NO.2 & 3 in the account of Complainant No.2 from complainant No.2 only and in case he has any grouse, then it is only against complainant No.2, who has not come forward to clarify the matter in question.  In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present complaint.  Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs.

        

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th October, 2017                 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER