Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/222

Dharampal Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Customer Service - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Chauhan

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                      222 of 2017

Date of Institution:            10.07.2017

Date of Decision :            20.03.2019

 

Dharampal Ram aged about 37 years son of Lachman Ram, resident of 204, Near Government School Chahal, Village Tehna, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Customer Service Centre, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Near Secretariat, Faridkot through its Sub Divisional Officer.
2. Customer Service Centre, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Near Sher Shah Wali Chownk, Ferozepur through its General Manager (T).
3. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Plot No. 2, Himalaya Marg, Chandigarh through its Chief General Manager (T).
4. Tejinderpal Singh son of Gurdarshan Singh r/o House No. 3, Mapel Tower, Bollywood Heights, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali.                                         

(Complaint against OP-4 was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.03.2019)

....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

 cc no.-222 of 2017

               

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-1 to 3.

                  

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for seeking directions to OPs to activate the mobile no.73800-00000 in the name of complainant  and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that OPs offered fancy numbers for their customers for postpaid and prepaid connections and categories of these fancy numbers alongwith their prices are given by OPs on their  website. Being fascinated by the advertisements of OPs, complainant installed MY BSNL app on his mobile on 22.06.2017 and got reserved the fancy number 73800-00000. He duly received 7 digits pin on his mobile number and he also took screen shot of said pin. On 23.06.2017, complainant visited the office of OP-1 and submitted the requisite documents and also completed all formalities to get activated his fancy number, but  when representative of OP-1 proceeded to activate the said number, he informed him that said number has already been activated by someone else and showed his inability to disclose the identity of that person. Thereafter, complainant came to know that 7 digits pin for said fancy number was leaked by one of employees of OPs in connivance with the person

cc no.-222 of 2017

who got activated the said fancy number. Complainant submitted before the Forum that details of fancy number and 7 digits pin remain with the OPs and there are no chances of any hacking or leaking. Though complainant got reserved the said fancy number and also received 7 digits pin for its activation, but with the malafide intention of OPs, said number was activated to someone else. Complainant complained about this OP-3, who assured to take necessary action against wrongdoer and  on his complaint, also barred the services of said number. But thereafter, Ops restored the said connection without redressing the grievance of complainant. complainant again made complaint to OP-2 but all in vain. Complainant also sent e-mail regarding his grievance to senior officers of Ops, but Ops did not do anything needful. Complainant made several requests to Ops to activate the said number in his name and deactivate the same from the name of some other person, but OPs failed to redress the grievance of complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 17.07.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                        OPs filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complainant does not fall under the definition of

cc no.-222 of 2017

consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present case and it is not maintainable in present form. It is further averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is based on baseless allegations. They have denied all the allegations of complainant being concocted ones and asserted that mobile number 94785-50007 does not belong to complainant and complainant has not given the complete name and address and identity of the person for whom this number is working. Mere attaching the screen shot does not prove that PIN in question was received on  number of complainant. in these days, technology is growing very fastly and data can be transferred from one mobile to another in few seconds. It is possible that PIN has not been received on the mobile number of complainant. It is further averred that connection number 7380000000 has already been issued in the name of one Tejinder Singh on 22.06.2017 from CSC Sector 34, Chandigarh prior to the visiting of complainant in the office of Ops at Faridkot. Complainant reached them on 23.06.2017, but connection in question was activated on 22.06.2017 and there is no authenticity that complainant received PIN on his mobile no.94785-50007. Allegation of complainant that PIN number was leaked from the office of OPs is totally false as Department works as per rules and regulations systematically but complainant has not proved that he received said PIN number on his mobile number. It is further

cc no.-222 of 2017

averred that it is not possible to check and edit the secret PIN Code generated by independent computer system which is not under direct control of OPs, but on the other hand complainant was at liberty to check the PIN Number and to share it with others. Said PIN Code has never been in the custody of OPs. Moreover, mobile number on which said PIN Code was received belongs to one Gurmail Singh of Sangrur and this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present matter. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                      Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of  Navdeep Sethi as Ex OP-1and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-4 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7                                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OP, it is observed that case of complainant is that he

8                                                       Grievance of complainant is that on being allured and fascinated by the advertisements of OPs, he installed MY BSNL app

cc no.-222 of 2017

on his mobile on 22.06.2017 and got reserved the fancy number 73800-00000. He duly received 7 digits PIN Code on his mobile number of which he took screen. On 23.06.2017, complainant completed all formalities to get activated his fancy number, but there he was told by representative of OP-1 that said number has already been activated by someone else and did not disclose the identity of that person. It came to the notice  of complainant that 7 digits pin for said fancy number was leaked by one of employees of OPs in connivance with the person who got activated the said fancy number. He complained about this to OP-3, who assured to take necessary action against wrongdoer and also barred the services to that umber, but later on, Ops restored the said connection without redressing the grievance of complainant. Complainant again made complaint and also sent e-mail regarding his grievance to senior officers of Ops, but Ops did not do anything needful. He made several requests to activate the said number in his name and deactivate the same from the name of some other person, but OPs failed to redress his grievance and caused harassment to him which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that complainant has not given name, address and identity of the person to whom this number is allotted and mere attaching the screen shot does not prove that PIN in question was received on his number. Due to high technology, data can be transferred from one mobile to another in few seconds. PIN is not received on the mobile number of complainant. Connection number 7380000000 has already been issued in the name of one Tejinder Singh on 22.06.2017 from Chandigarh prior to the visiting of complainant in the office of Ops at Faridkot. Complainant reached them on 23.06.2017, but said mobile number was activated

cc no.-222 of 2017

on 22.06.2017 and there is no authenticity that complainant received PIN on his mobile no.94785-50007. It is denied that PIN number was leaked from the office of OPs and complainant has not proved that he received said PIN number on his mobile number. It is not possible to check and edit the secret PIN Code which is not under direct control of OPs, but on the other hand complainant was at liberty to check and share the said PIN with others. Said PIN Code has never been in the custody of OPs. Moreover, mobile number on which said PIN Code was received belongs to one Gurmail Singh and not to complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                       Grievance of complainant is that for the purpose of obtaining fancy number, complainant he installed MY BSNL app on his mobile on 22.06.2017 and got reserved the fancy number 73800-00000. He duly received 7 digits PIN Code on his mobile number of which he took screen, but next day on 23.06.2017 when he approached the office of OPs to get activated the same number, he was told by representative of OPs that fancy number in question has already been activated in the name of some one else. He also reported the matter to senior officials of OPs, who barred the services of said number but later on again started the same. Action of OPs in not activating the said number to complainant despite having released PIN Code in his favour, amounts to deficiency in service. Repeated requests by complainant to activate the said number in his name bore no fruits and in all this he suffered huge harassment and mental agony.

cc no.-222 of 2017

 

10                                              To prove his pleadings he brought before the Forum copy of screen shot of message sent by OPs/ BSNL that clearly shows the PIN 5475184 for disputed number 7380000000. PIN code proves the fact that complainant got reserved the said fancy number for him. Ex C-4 is copy of e-mail sent by complainant to OPs wherein he made request to OPs to activate the said number in his favour as he got booked the said mobile number on 22.06.2017. On the contrary, OPs have nothing to contradict the allegations of complainant. Secret PIN code was issued by OPs and it was in their safe custody and complainant has no reason to leak the same. Action of OPs in issuing PIN code in the name of complainant and then activating the number in the name of some other person is a trade mal practice. There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

11                                                  From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not providing services to complainant and action of OPs in activating the said fancy mobile number in the name of someone else and not in the name of complainant has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and

 

cc no.-222 of 2017

27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 20.03.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President