Haryana

Karnal

CC/225/2016

Deepak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Telecom Service - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar Popli

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.225 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 01.08.2016

                                                      Date of decision:12.04.2018

 

Deepak aged about 28 years son of Shir Sadanand, resident of House no.1117, Pritam Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1. Tata Telecom Services, plot no.352, Sector-03, Industrial Area, Karnal, through its Proprietor/partner/authorized Signatory.

2. M/s Mehta Services, Authorized Store of Reliance Communications Limited, SCO no.397, Old Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Proprietor/partner/Authorized Signatory.

3. Reliance WEB Store Limited, c/o Reliance Communications Limited, Thane Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai. 400 710, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

4. Reliance Communications Limited, H-Block, 1^st floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400710, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before    Sh. Jagmal Singh……President    

                Sh. Anil Sharma…….Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Ashwani Popli Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for OP no.1

                   OP no.2 exparte.

                   Shri Akshat Sharma Advocate for OPs no.3 and 4.

                  

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had purchased a Pre-paid Sim card of TATA-DOCOMO Company bearing mobile no.92152-32222 from the OP no.1 and since after activation of said Sim Card the services were provided by the OP no.1. In the month of January, 2016 the complainant was interested for portability of said Pre-paid Sim Card from OP no.1 to the company of OPs no.2 to 4 due to some network problem in the services of the OP no.1. On 13.01.2016 the complainant approached to OP no.2 for portability of said prepaid sim card from OP no.1 to OPs no.2 to 4 and then complainant submitted his identification documents two photographs in the office of OP no.2 and also put signature on some printed forms as per instruction. OP no.2 had assured to the complainant that prepaid sim card would be activated within 48 hours with the services of OPs no.2 to 4. After lapse of 48 hours the service of OPs no.2 to 4 was not activated on prepaid sim card bearing mobile no.92152-32222. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.2 for activation of prepaid sim card but OP no.2 lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, the OPs no.2 to 4 activated the prepaid services after 20-25 days. After portability of prepaid sim card the complainant started using the same and got recharge from the OP no.2 so many times. But OPs no.2 to 4 who even after providing prepaid services started sending bills. OPs no.2 to 4 sent a bill dated 11.02.2016 in which Rs.810.96P were demanded from the complainant. After receipt of first bill in the month of Februarys, 2016 the complainant approached the OP no.2 for complaining about receiving bills by him, then addressee no.2 has told to the complainant that sim card bearing mobile no.92152-32222 had been activated by the OPs no.2 to 4 with prepaid services, so the said bill sent by OPs no.3 to 4 due to some mistake and OP no.2 instructed the complainant not to deposit the said bill. Complainant again received bill in the month of March, 2016 and complainant again approached the OP no.2 and complained about the same and at that time also OPs no.3 and 4 also said that the said bill was sent due to some mistake and OP no.2 assured the complainant that he would not receive the bill from the OPs no. 3 and 4 in future. But it is very strange complainant again received the bill in the month of April 2016. Due to this act and conduct of OPs no.2 to 4 complainant being fed up from the services of OPs no.2 to 4 and he again applied for portability of his sim card from the company of OPs no.2 to 4 to the company of OP no.1. After portability of the sim card since 20.4.2016 complainant used the same with the service of OP no.1 but it is very surprisingly the OPs no.2 to 4 did not stop sending the bill. On 17.7.2016 the service of abovesaid sim card has been de-activated by OP no.1. On enquiry, OP no.1 instructed to the complainant that the service of sim card would not be provided until and unless the complainant would not deposit Rs.5095/- in the office of OP no.2. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that on 20.4.2016 complainant applied for port from Reliance Network to network of OP no.1 but the Reliance company rejected the mobile number portability request, owing to outstanding amount payable by the complainant to Reliance to the tune of Rs.5094.96. Prior to disconnection, OP no.1 sent an SMS to clear the outstanding dues payable to OPs no.3 and 4 and submit proof thereof to the OP no.1. Since the payment was not deposited by the complainant, hence the OP no.1 was constrained to disconnect the mobile no.92152-32222. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 9.11.2016.

4.             OPs no.3 and 4 filed their joint written statement stating therein that at the time of filling the CAF the complainant had provided the post paid bill dated 5.12.2015 of 9215232222 and similarly had opted for a postpaid connection with OPs no.3 and 4. The averments made in the entire complaint that complainant had applied for a prepaid number are false and baseless. Bare perusal of the Customer Application Form (CAF) filled by the complainant for obtaining the connection shows that he had opted for a postpaid connection/plan. Now the complainant with the malafide intentions is now making false and concocted story that he had applied for a prepaid connection just to avoid the payment of the bills. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.3 and 4 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 9.10.2017.

5.             On the other hand OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh Chauhan Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 12.12.2017. OPs no.3 and 4 made a statement on 27.2.2018 that their written statement be read as their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the submission of the parties it has become clear that the dispute between the parties is that according to complainant he applied for prepaid plan whereas according to OP no.3 and 4 the complainant has applied for obtaining postpaid connection/plan. Therefore, the question arises that whether the complainant had applied for obtaining prepaid plan or postpaid connection/plan from OPs no.3 and 4.       

8.             The complainant had the prepaid sim card bearing mobile no.9215232222. According to the complainant that he had a prepaid sim card of OP no.1 and the same was ported with OPs no.3 and 4 through OP no.2 and the same was activated as prepaid sim card with OPs no.2 to 4. It is further the case of the complainant that he got recharged his prepaid sim card from OP no.2 but OPs no.3 and 4 have wrongly sent the bill as postpaid time and again i.e. bill for February 2016, March 2016, April 2016 etc. So the complainant again ported his said mobile number with OP no.1. It is further alleged by the complainant that OPs no.3 and 4 have wrongly decline the permission for the portability on the basis of due amount whereas no amount was due against the complainant.

9.             On the other hand, the OPs no.3 and 4 contended that the averments of complainant that he had applied for a prepaid number are false and baseless. The further contended that the bare perusal of the Customer Application Form filled by the complainant for obtaining the connection shows that he had opted for a postpaid connection/plan.

10.            As OPs alleged that the complainant had opted for postpaid connection/plan, so the onus to prove the same was on the OPs no.3 and 4. The OPs no.3 and 4 specifically alleged that the customer application form for obtaining the connection shows that he (customer) had opted for postpaid connection/plan but the OPs no.3 and 4 has not produced any copy of the said form or the original form on the file. Without the customer application form it cannot be said that the complainant had opted for postpaid connection/plan. It is pertinent to mention here that the application form vide which the complainant had applied is in the possession of OPs no.3 and 4 but they failed to produce the same.  Hence in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OPs no.3 and 4 have failed to prove that the complainant has applied for postpaid connection/plan. Further, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant was having the prepaid connection/plan. Hence the OPs no.3 and 4 are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

11.            In view of the above discussion, as we held that OPs no.3 and 4 have failed to prove that the complainant opted for postpaid connection/plan, therefore, the OPs no.3 and 4 have wrongly issued the bill to the complainant for postpaid connection when the complainant was having a prepaid connection. Moreover, on perusal of the bills issued by the OPs no.3 and 4, it is clear that no arrear were shown in any of the bill. The OPs no.3 and 4 had also failed to produce any receipt regarding the deposit of any of the bill by the complainant and when the complainant has not deposited any bill then why the OPs no.3 and 4 has not shown the previous arrear in the next bill. In these circumstances, we declare that the bills issued regarding the prepaid connection of the complainant are hereby declared null and void.

12.             In view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and  direct the OPs no.2 to 4 to grant permission for portability of the mobile number of the complainant in favour of OP no.1 and OP no.1 is also directed to re-activated the services on the sim card of the complainant bearing mobile no.92152-32222. The OPs no.2 to 4 are further directed to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:12.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                     (Anil Sharma)

                          Member