Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/496

Karamjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

AP Singh adv

07 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:496 dated 06.08.2018                    

                            Date of decision: 07.12.2021.

 

Karamjit Singh s/o Sh.Jarnail Singh r/o # 157, Village Gill, Near GNE College, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

 

1.M/s Idea Cellular Limited through its Managing Director/Director(s).

2.The Managing Director/Director(s) of M/s Idea Cellular Limited.

3.The Nodal Officer/General Manager of M/s Idea Cellular Limited,

All c/o, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali-160055.

4.Pritpal Singh/Raju (Agent/Representative of M/s Idea Cellular Limited)

c/o Pioneer Communications, Plot No.4536, Chimney Road, Opp.Easy Day, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

                                                                              …..Opposite parties

 

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.A.P.Singh, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh.Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was subscriber of OP1 vide mobile sim No.95922-22258. The complainant could not deposit the bill for few months in the year 2017 with the result that his mobile number was deactivated. In November 2017, the complainant contacted OP4 and he was told that an amount of Rs.300/- was due against him. The complainant was further asked to provide his ID proof for reactivation of his mobile number. The complainant deposited Rs.300/- and also submitted his ID proof i.e. self attested copy of his Aadhar Card and driving license with OP4, who assured that his mobile number would be activated within 48 hours. However, the mobile number was not activated even after the lapse of three days, upon which the complainant again contacted OP4 and requested him to issue receipt of Rs.300/- but the OP4 refused to issue the receipt and instead started demanding an amount of Rs.2500/- from the complainant on the ground that the mobile number of the complainant was a VIP number. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the office of OPs situated at Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana where he came to know that in December 2017, the account of the complainant was debited sum of Rs.10,300/- comprising of Rs.150/- as security, Rs.150/- as activation fee and Rs.10,000/- as VIP number charges. In this manner, the OPs have cheated and defrauded the complainant knowing fully well that they had already received the security and activation fee of Rs.300/- from the complainant in November 2017 and thereafter, illegally debited the account of the complainant with Rs.10,300/- which is illegal. The complainant requested the OP3 through email dated 8/10.02.2018 to activate the mobile number 95922-22258 and to waive off the amount of Rs.10,300/- but to no avail. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Even a legal notice dated 10.03.2018 served upon the OPs through counsel Sh.A.P.Singh, Advocate has failed to evoke a positive response. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to activate the mobile number 95922-22258 and to waive off the amount of Rs.10,000/- illegally debited in the account of the complainant and be further made to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and damages along with Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                Upon notice, OP4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                However, the complaint has been resisted by the OP1 to OP3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is nothing but just an abuse of the process of law and further that the complaint is not maintainable as this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. According to the OP1 to OP3, the complainant was a subscriber of the OPs earlier but not at the time of filing of complaint on 06.08.2018. It has been admitted that the connection was disconnected on 31.08.2017 on account of non-deposit of outstanding bills. As the sim was of Diamond+ category being premium number, charges of Rs.10,000/- plus taxes were applicable. The number could be activated only after the payment of diamond premium number charges and demand of the same is not illegal. As the complainant did not pay the requisite charges and the bill, it was permanently disconnected on 31.08.2017. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OP1 to OP3 submitted affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manoj Madan, DGM-Legal and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the written submissions made by counsel for the OP1 to OP3.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant sim number 95922-22258 was disconnected in the year 2017 due to non-payment of bills which he could not deposit due to illness. Subsequently, in November 2017 when he contacted the OPs, he was told that an amount of Rs.300/- was due. He deposited the said amount with the OP4 and also submitted his ID proofs but instead of reactivating his mobile number, the OP4 initially demanded Rs.2500/- and the OP1 to OP4 subsequently demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that sim number 95922-22258 was a VIP number. It has, however, not been disputed that prior to the disconnection in the year 2017, the mobile number was being used by the complainant. It is not understandable as to how all of sudden, it became a VIP number. Had it been a VIP number, the demand of any extra fee would have been charged by the OPs prior to 2017 when the number was initially issued to the complainant. Moreover, in this regard, no document has been placed on record by the OPs to prove that the sim number was allotted to the complainant as a special or a VIP number. The demand of Rs.10,000/- raised by the OPs on the pretext of the number being a special one is clearly unjustified and amounts to deficiency of service. The OPs at the most could have asked the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of the bills or at the most of some penalty on account of non-payment of bills. On the contrary, the OPs chose to demand an unreasonable amount of Rs.10,000/- on the ground that number of complainant was a VIP number which is neither legal nor valid nor the sim number in question can be said to be a special number. In the given circumstances, it would be just and proper, if the OPs are directed to reissue the mobile number to the complainant, if it has not been allotted to anyone else or otherwise, they will allot a fresh mobile number to the complainant and shall also pay Rs.5000/- as composite compensation to the complainant.  

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OP1 to OP3 shall reissue the mobile number to the complainant, if it has not been issued to anyone else. In the alternative, the OP1 to OP3 shall allot and activate a fresh sim/mobile number to the complainant. The OP1 to OP3 shall further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as composite compensation to the complainant. Since OP4 is only an agent of the OP1 to OP3, the complaint against him is dismissed. Compliance of the order be made within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                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:07.12.2021.

Gurpreet Sharma.