Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/742

Amrinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goyal Adv.

21 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:742 dated 13.10.2016.                                                        Date of decision: 21.10.2021. 

 

Amrinder Singh S/o. Lakhvir Singh, R/o. House No.111, Narotam Nagar, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Idea Cellular Limited, Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector-11, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382011, India.
2.   M/s. City Traders, Near Gopal Dhaba, Kurali, SAS Nagar, through its owner/Prop. Amritpal Singh.                                                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Sans unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he was holding postpaid mobile No.9646223000. The complainant wanted to get this connection converted from postpaid to prepaid for which he deposited outstanding bill and completed all the formalities. The complainant was allotted a new sim on 28.09.2016. The complainant also received an auto generated email on 29.09.2016 regarding conversion of the pan from postpaid to prepaid. The sales person of the OPs assured the complainant that the new sim would start working from the next day i.e. 29.09.2016 onwards. The previous postpaid sim had already stopped working by them. However, the new prepaid sim issued by the OPs did not start working. The complainant approached the office of the OPs where the officials refused to listen and instead misbehaved with the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to activate the prepaid connection/sim and be also made to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- as compensation for loss of business, another sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation along with Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.   

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP2. In the written statement filed by the OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainant visited OP2 at Kurali on 29.09.2016 and requested for conversion of mobile number 9646223000 from postpaid to prepaid. The complainant signed the customer application form with documents. However, the documents submitted by the complainant were found objectionable by the verifying agency and the same were rejected on the ground that proof of identity provided by the complainant bore a notary stamp. As per the guidelines of TRAI, the OPs had to verify the documents for the change of the plan for security purpose so that the  number might not be misused. This fact was brought to the notice of the complainant when he visited the store of OP2 on 05.10.2016. The complainant was further guided and asked to submit fresh documents in respect of his identity proof. The complainant, however, remained adamant and did not supply any fresh documents. Instead, the complainant applied for allotment of same mobile number by filling a new customer application form along with fresh documents. The said number was accordingly activated on 19.10.2016 by OP1 in accordance with guidelines of TRAI and the said sim number continues to be in activated state. The complainant applied and got the number activated from My Idea store at Chandigarh. All these facts have been concealed by the complainant while filing the present complaint and the present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention to harass OP1. It has also been pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant has been using number for commercial purpose and he is not covered under definition of consumer. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP1 submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manoj Madan, authorized signatory of OP1along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and have gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he applied for conversion of his mobile No.9646223000 from postpaid to prepaid on 28.09.2016. The complainant completed all the formalities and submitted necessary documents and he was allotted a new sim and was further assured that the new sim would be activated on 29.092016. However, the said sim was not activated and when the complainant contacted the office of OP2, they refused to help.

8.                On the other hand, the stand taken by OP1 is that the sim could not be activated on 29.09.2016 as the proof of identity furnished by the complainant was not proper and it carried a notary stamp and as per the guidelines of TRAI, it could not be activated. However, in this regard, OP1 has not specified as to what document as identity proof was submitted by the complainant which was not proper and in accordance with the rules. Therefore, it cannot be successfully argued on behalf of OP1 that the sim could not be activated due to some lapse on behalf of the complainant himself.    

9.                It has further been claimed in the written statement by OP1 that the complainant himself and voluntarily applied for the grant of same number on 17.10.2016 and submitted a new customer application form with new document which was activated on 19.10.2016 by OP1 and from 19.10.2016 onwards, the said connection is operative and running.

10.              The complainant has not filed any replication/rejoinder to controvert these facts. Therefore, the fact remains that the complainant himself applied for getting same number by filing a new application with fresh documents. However, on this account, it cannot be said that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1. As stated in the foregoing para of this order, the OP1 has not clarified as to what documents submitted as identity proof was not acceptable in according with guidelines of TRAI. Therefore, under the circumstances, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that the connection of the complainant remained suspended from 29.09.2016 to 19.10.2016 and this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP1 is made to pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for rendering deficient services.

 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OP1 shall pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Complaint as against OP2, who is merely an authorized agent/dealer of OP2, is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.10.2021.

Gobind Ram.