Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/782

M/s Bhagwant Knitwears - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amrik Singh Adv.

25 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:742 dated 13.10.2016.                                                        Date of decision: 25.10.2021. 

M/s. Bhagwant Knitwears, B-V-559, Wait Ganj, Lal Masjid Road, Ludhiana mobile No.97816-66666 e-mail

                                      Versus

1. The Manager, The Idea Cellular Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali,160055, Punjab.
2. Madam Mukta C/o. M/s. My Idea Showroom, Ghumar Mandi, Behind Khalsa College, Ludhiana Mobile No.98142-02030.                                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Amrik Singh Sakhira, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a partnership form and Jagjit Singh, through whom the present complaint has been filed, is managing partner of the firm. It is further alleged that OP1 issued mobile No.85678-99999 to the complainant and he has been using the same since long for commercial purposes to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. On 21.10.2016, the complainant received call from mobile No.99668-86633. When the complainant checked the identity of the caller through true caller, the identity could not be traced. The complainant received another call from mobile No.70092-18660, but the identity of the said mobile holder could not be traced. On 22.10.2016, the complainant was not getting any network on his mobile though whatsapp was working. The complainant tried to call on his mobile no.85678-99999 from some other mobile number, but the receiver switched off the mobile. Thereafter, the complainant sent whatsapp message to mobile No.85678-99999 and he replied by whatsapp message that the said number had been purchased by him on 22.10.2016. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact the Idea customer care, but the customer care stopped outgoing calls on mobile No.85678-99999, but its whatsapp kept working which was being used by the holder of the said mobile. The complainant contacted Idea showroom at Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana and one official namely Mr. Bansal told the complainant that OP2 had issued the said mobile number to some Guava Softs Private Limited. The complainant came to know that the said company was situated near showroom of OP2. Eventually on 24.10.2016, the complainant got the said mobile number issued from Idea Cellular Ltd. After much efforts.  All the credit cards, debit cards and bank account numbers of the complainant were linked with the said mobile number. The complainant had to suffer great mental tension and agony and had to block his credit and debit card as well as bank account numbers which were connected with the said mobile number. Since it was a festival season, therefore, the complainant could not do the necessary shopping. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be summoned and the appropriate relief may be granted to the complainant and directions be issued to the OPs to issue NOC in favour of the complainant.   

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte, but later on exparte order as against OP1 was set aside by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 21.07.2017.

3.                In the written statement filed by OP1, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has deliberately concealed material fats while filing the present complaint. According to OP1, the complainant firm is subscriber of various mobile numbers

The complainant firm is a corporate customer of OP1 and is having many connections in its name. The complainant has not disclosed that he has filed a civil suit before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana on 08.11.2016 on the same cause of action. According to OP2, services of the said mobile number of the complainant were stopped on 22.10.2016 at 05.50PM by OP1. When this fact was brought to the notice to OP2, the mistake was immediately rectified and OP2 reinstated the mobile number immediately. Therefore, due to human error on the part of OP1, the number of the complainant remained disconnected for a short period. The complainant sent an email on 24.10.2016 which was duly reverted to and the complainant has concealed this fact from the court. OP2 even apologized to the complainant immediately. On merits, it has been pleaded that the mobile number 85678-99999 was ported to Idea Cellular Limited from AIRCEL on 20.02.2015. It has further been pleaded that the service of said number were stopped at 05.50 PM on 22.10.2016 and the same was restored on 24.10.2016. It has also been pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as he admittedly been using the mobile for commercial purpose. The other 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. CW1/A with documents Ex. CW1 to Ex. CW3 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 Annexure-OP1 and Annexure-OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and have gone through the written arguments submitted by OP1.

7.                The grievance of the complainant is that his mobile no.85678-99999 stopped working on 21/22.10.2016 and it was allotted to M/s.Guava Softs Pvt. Ltd. It has been admitted in the complaint itself that the complainant got the mobile number re-issued from the OPs. In the written statement, it has been candidly admitted by OP1 that the service of the complainant qua mobile No.95678-99999 were stopped at 05.50 PM on 22.10.2015 by OP2 and when this fact was brought to the notice of OP2, the mistake was immediately rectified and OP2 reinstated the mobile number immediately and the services were restored on24.10.2016. It is, therefore, evident from the record that the services in respect of mobile number 95678-99999 remained suspended about two days causing inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. In our considered view, this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Even though the services were restored within short period of two days, this by itself does not take away the right of the complainant from seeking compensation for harassment caused due to negligence on the part of the OPs. Therefore, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000- as compensation and Rs.2,200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OPs shall jointly and severally pay  a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of 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:25.10.2021.

Gobind Ram.